ARUN SINGH & OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P. THROUGH ITS SECRETARY & ANOTHER

Citation: [2020] 3 S.C.R. 707 · Decided: 10-02-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: NAVIN SINHA · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
707
ARUN SINGH & OTHERS
v.
STATE OF U.P. THROUGH ITS SECRETARY & ANOTHER
(Criminal Appeal No. 250 of 2020)
FEBRUARY 10, 2020
[NAVIN SINHA AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973– s.482 – Non-
compoundable offences – Power of High Court to quash
proceedings – Respondent no.2 alleged that after the marriage
proposal of his daughter was finalised with appellant no.1, he started
visiting their house frequently and misleading his daughter that now
since the marriage is finalised and only ceremony of ‘feras’ remains
to be performed, took her for outings on various occasions – One
day he induced her to his room and established physical relationship
with her – Subsequently, the appellant started making demand of
dowry of Rs. 5 Lakh – Complaint made before Mahila Thana – No
action taken – On coming to know that appellant no.1’s marriage
was settled with some other girl, FIR was lodged u/ss. 493, IPC r/w
ss. 3/4, 1961 Act – Appellants challenged the chargesheet u/s. 482,
CrPC and alleged that a demand of Rs.10 Lakhs was made from
them with a threat to implicate in false case if the demand was not
met – Appellant made application u/s.156(3), CrPC against
respondent no.2 and his family members – Meanwhile, respondent
no.2 made a complaint in Mahila Thana which was later
compromised, in view of which the appellants did not press the
application u/s. 156(3), CrPC – Petition u/s. 482, CrPC dismissed
by High Court – Held: Though the offences in question are non-
compoundable but the power of High Court u/s. 482, CrPC to quash
the proceedings in such offences is well recognised – Offences for
which the appellants are charged are infact offences against society
and not private in nature – In such cases, settlement even if arrived
at between the complainant and the accused, the same cannot
constitute a valid ground to quash FIR or charge sheet – High Court
not unjustified in refusing to quash charge sheet on ground of
compromise – Further, the allegations made in FIR, only against
one of the appellant, cannot be said to constitute any offence
[2020] 3 S.C.R. 707
707
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
708
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 3 S.C.R.
u/s. 493, IPC as they do not cull out any inducement of belief in the
victim that she is lawfully married to appellant no.1 and on account
of this deceitful misstatement, she co-habited with him – Also, there
are no allegations in this regard in respect of other five accused-
appellants – However, allegations in FIR clearly show that a demand
of Rs. 5 Lakhs as dowry was made by appellants from respondent
no.2 thus, it can not be said that no offence under the 1961 Act is
made out – Charge sheet insofar as s. 493, IPC is concerned stands
quashed – However, in respect of charge sheet u/s.3 r/w s.4, 1961
Act, the appeal is dismissed – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – ss. 3,4
& 8(2) – Penal Code, 1860 – s.493.
Penal Code, 1860 – s. 493 – Essence of offence under –
Discussed.
Words & Expressions – “deceit” – Meaning of – Held: Deceit
can be said to be a false statement of fact made by a person knowingly
and recklessly with the intent that it shall be acted upon by another
who on believing the same after having acted thereupon suffers an
injury – It is an attempt to deceive and includes such declaration
and statement that misleads others or causes him to believe which
otherwise is false and incorrect – Penal Code, 1860 – s.493.
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – ss. 3 and 4 – Essential
ingredients of offence under – Discussed.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Offences for which the appellants have been
charged are infact offences against society and not private in
nature. Such offences have serious impact upon society and
continuance of trial of such cases is founded on the overridding
effect of public interests in punishing persons for such serious
offences. It is neither an offence arising out of commercial,
financial, mercantile, partnership or such similar transactions or
has any element of civil dispute thus it stands on a distinct footing.
In such cases, settlement even if arrived at between the
complainant and the accused, the same cannot constitute a valid
ground to quash the F.I.R. or the charge sheet. Thus the High
Court cannot be said to be unjustified in refusing to quash the
charge sheet on the ground of compromise between the parties.
[Paras 15, 16][716 F-H; 717 A-B]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
709
1.2 A plain reading of the Section 493, IPC goes to show
that in order to constitute a

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.