Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT     PETITION     (CRL.)     NO.109     OF     2012   

Pooja Rana                …  Petitioner  

Versus

State of Haryana & Ors.                                      …  Respondents

O     R     D     E     R   

1. This petition has been filed for quashing the First  

Information Report No. 609 of 2012 under Sections 363, 366,  

328 and 504 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter called  

‘IPC’) registered at Police Station Hissar, (City) Haryana and for  

further direction to the State Authorities to register the criminal  

case against the petitioner’s father, mother and maternal uncle.  

2. The writ petition has been filed alleging that the  

petitioner was born on 2.9.1993, thus she was major and has a  

right to choose a person with whom she wants to settle in her life.  

Petitioner married one Sachin Kumar Rana, resident of Sambhal,  

Moradabad, (U.P.) of her free will. However, her parents and

Page 2

maternal uncle had registered a criminal case against her husband  

and they are harassing him.  Thus, the petition has been filed for  

the aforesaid reliefs.  

3. The matter was heard at length on 24.8.2012 and Mr.  

Gaurav Kumar Bansal, learned counsel appearing for the  

petitioner  was asked to explain as under what circumstances  

such a writ petition can be entertained as it suffers from  

following basic defects:

(i) The FIR sought to be quashed has not been placed on  

record.  

(ii) The person who is to be granted protection i.e. Shri  

Sachin Kumar Rana is not a party  as either petitioner or the  

respondent.  

(iii)  The complainant-persons who are harassing the  

petitioner’s husband Sachin Kumar Rana, namely Ashok Bansal-

father, Sunita Bansal-mother and Subhash Gupta-maternal  uncle  

are not the parties before us.  

4. As learned counsel for the petitioner was not able to  

provide proper assistance, we adjourned the case for today and  

also requested  the learned Advocate-on-record  who has signed  

the petition to remain present in the court so that he can explain  

2

Page 3

as to whether such a petition is maintainable or ought to have  

been filed.  

5. In Surinder Singh v. Central Government & Ors.,  

AIR 1986 SC 2166, this Court dealt with an issue  for quashing  

of order which had not been made part of the record and  

observed as under:  

“…..In the absence of the impugned order it  would not be possible to ascertain the reasons which  may have impelled the authority to pass the order. It  is therefore improper to quash an order which is not  produced before the High Court in a proceeding  under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The order of the  High Court could be set aside for this reason…”

6. It is not the case of the petitioner that she had made any  

attempt to get the copy of the FIR and it was not made available  

to her. Nor there is any statement in her petition that she tried to  

lodge the FIR against her parents and uncle but it was not  

accepted. Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to explain as  

why the necessary parties, i.e. the complainants as well as the  

person for whom the protection is sought have not been  

impleaded.  

7. While dealing with a similar situation, this Court in Re:  

Sanjiv Datta, (1995) 3 SCC 619, held as under:  

3

Page 4

“…..Some members of the profession have been  adopting perceptibly casual approach to the practice  of the profession as is evident from their absence  when the matters are called out, the filing of  incomplete and inaccurate pleadings —  many  times even illegible and without personal check  and verification, the non-payment of court fees and  process fees, the failure to remove office objections,  the failure to take steps to serve the parties, et al. They  do not realise the seriousness of these acts and  omissions. They not only amount to the contempt  of the court but do positive disservice to the  litigants and create embarrassing situation in the  court leading to avoidable unpleasantness and delay  in the disposal of matters. This augurs ill for the  health of our judicial system……The lawyers took  their profession seriously and practised it with dignity,  deference and devotion. If the profession is to survive,  the judicial system has to be vitalised. No service will  be too small in making the system efficient, effective  and credible….” (Emphasis added)

8. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that such a  

petition does not deserve to be entertained. It is accordingly  

dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the  

petitioner, if so advised, may move the High Court for appropriate  

relief by filing appropriate petition.  

……………………………J. (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)

…………………………...J. (JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR)

New Delhi, August 27, 2012

4

Page 5

5