SACHIN PAWAR Vs STATE OF U.P..
Bench: H.L. GOKHALE,J. CHELAMESWAR
Case number: Crl.A. No.-001142-001142 / 2013
Diary number: 28158 / 2012
Advocates: D. N. GOBURDHAN Vs
AFTAB ALI KHAN
Page 1
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1142 OF 2013
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.6761/2012)
SACHIN PAWAR & ANR. Appellant(s)
:VERSUS:
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
2. Heard Ms. Geeta Luthra, learned senior
counsel in support of this appeal, Mr. Irshad Ahmad,
learned counsel appearing for the State of U.P. and
the learned counsel for the complainant.
3. The complainant respondent No.3 is the
brother of appellant No.2. He felt aggrieved by his
sister marrying to appellant No.1. It is a marriage
between two young persons belonging to two different
religions, but it is a marriage to which they
themselves agreed. They are both adults. A complaint
Page 2
2
was filed by respondent No.3 being Crime No.684/2012
at Meerut on 27th July, 2012, alleging that the
appellant No.1 herein has kidnapped his sister
(appellant No.2 herein).
4. The appellants therefore jointly filed a writ
petition bearing Criminal Misc. Writ Petition
No.10905 of 2012 in the High Court of Allahabad to
quash the said complaint. The High Court passed an
order on 9.8.2012 which accepted that these two
appellants are adults and they are married. It also
directed stay of arrest and granted them protection.
However, the High Court recorded two conditions
which are in paragraphs 4 and 7 of the order on the
Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition. The appellants
are aggrieved by these two conditions and that is
why they have filed this appeal by special leave.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the
parties concerned. Both the husband and wife
(appellant Nos.1 & 2 herein) are present in Court.
On our query, they have informed us that they have
married voluntarily and without any coercion. They
are adults. Appellant No.2 is a graduate in
Page 3
3
Political Science. The husband - appellant No.1 has
passed Engineering Examination and recently he has
got a job earning Rs.7,000/- per month. This being
so, counsel for the appellants assures us that
appellant No.1 will take good care of the second
appellant – his wife.
6. In our view, therefore, there is no need for
appellant No.1 to arrange to deposit Rs.2,50,000/-
for his wife in a bank as provided in paragraph 7 of
the impugned order. Similarly, there is no need for
recording the statement of the second appellant
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. before the Chief Judicial
Magistrate as directed in paragraph 4 of the
impugned order. We, therefore, allow this appeal
and set aside the order passed by the High Court to
the extent mentioned in these two paragraphs.
7. The complaint filed by respondent No.3
against appellant No.1 also does not require to be
retained any more. It is a complaint alleging the
kidnapping of appellant No.2 by appellant No.1. From
the facts of this case, it is clear that the second
appellant had gone over to the first appellant on
Page 4
4
her own and they are married, and are now living
together happily. Under the circumstances, the
complaint filed by respondent No.3, bearing Crime
No.684 of 2012 at Meerut, is hereby quashed. The
consequences thereof will follow.
8. Counsel for respondent No.3 states that the
second appellant should come and meet respondent
No.3 and his relatives. Counsel for the appellants
states that both the appellants will happily meet
respondent No.3 and his relatives on appropriate
occasions. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
.........................J (H.L. GOKHALE)
.........................J (J. CHELAMESWAR)
New Delhi; August 2, 2013.