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.