Supreme Court of India
Ram Kishan vs The State Of Rajasthan on 9 April, 2021Author: L. Nageswara Rao

Bench: Hon’Ble The Justice, L. Nageswara Rao, Vineet Saran









Leave granted.

2. This appeal has been filed challenging the Order of the

Rajasthan High Court whereby the First Information Report (for

short ‘FIR’) No.217 of 2006 lodged by the appellant against the

respondent no.3 under Sections 332 and 353 of the Indian Penal

Code (for short ‘IPC’), has been quashed in a petition under Section

482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) filed by the

respondents no. 2 and 3.

3. Briefly stated, the facts of this case are that the appellant, who

is a Police Constable, along with a Sub Inspector of Police and

another Constable, were checking the vehicles passing by on the

road in the evening on 21.07.2006, when at about 09:15 pm, one

motorcycle was stopped, and when the rider (Deepak Gupta) was

asked about the papers of the vehicle, instead of showing the

papers, on the pretext of talking over mobile phone, he fled away

and returned after about 20 minutes along with two ladies in one

Maruti Car, one of whom was the respondent no.3­Ms. Ratna Gupta

and the other was respondent no.2­Ms. Usha Gupta. The said Ms.

Ratna Gupta, who was herself an Inspector in Rajasthan Police,

alighted from the car and uttered caste related abuses to the

appellant, and asked that what power did the appellant have to stop

the motorcycle despite her (Ratna Gupta’s) name having been

taken. She then caught hold of the collar of the appellant, slapped

and beat him, and thereafter fled away from the place. An FIR

No.217 of 2006 of the said incident was lodged by the appellant on

21.07.2006 at 09:45 pm.

4. Cross FIR No. 218 of 2006 was lodged on 22.07.2006 by

Deepak Gupta alleging that he was stopped by the appellant in the

late evening on 21.07.2006, and that the appellant asked for

Rs.100/­ (Rupees One Hundred) and when the same was not given,

the appellant assaulted the said Deepak Gupta. It was also alleged

that the appellant behaved indecently with the respondent no.2 Ms.

Usha Gupta (who was also with him on motorcycle) and tore her


5. With regard to FIR No.218 of 2006, after a detailed

investigation, a Final Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed by

the Police on 30.12.2006, which matter is pending before the

concerned Magistrate.

6. The earlier FIR No. 217 of 2006 was challenged by the

respondents no. 2 and 3 before the Rajasthan High Court, which

petition has been allowed and the said FIR has been quashed.

Challenging the said Order dated 23.01.2015 of the High Court,

this Special Leave Petition has been filed.

7. Shri Rishi Matoliya, learned Advocate has appeared on behalf

of the appellant and Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned Senior Advocate

has appeared for the State­respondent no.1. Respondents no.2 and

3 (Ms. Usha Gupta and Ms. Ratna Gupta) appeared in person. By

an earlier Order dated 24.07.2018, this Court had recorded that the

respondent no.3 (who appeared in person) was not in a position to

make her submissions properly and therefore, Shri Vijay Hansaria,

learned Senior Advocate was appointed as Amicus Curiae.

8. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties as well as

Amicus Curiae and Respondents no.2 and 3, at length and have

carefully perused the relevant documents.

9. From the record, as well as the submission made by the

learned Counsel for the parties and also the Amicus Curiae, we are

of the opinion that in the facts of the present case, the finding

recorded by the High Court that the report (FIR no. 218) of the

respondents no.2 and 3 (petitioners before the High Court) was not

registered immediately, cannot be justified, primarily because the

matter relating to FIR No.217 of 2006 was under investigation and

it was not for the High Court to have substituted its own opinion in

this regard by holding that the FIR no. 217 of 2006 was filed as a

counter blast, specially when it was registered a day earlier than

FIR no. 218 of 2006 and the matter was admittedly still under

investigation. In our considered opinion, quashing the FIR No.217

of 2006, solely on this ground is wholly unreasonable and cannot

be justified in law. It is also noteworthy, that while deciding the

matter, the High Court has not considered the Injury Report of the

appellant­Ram Kishan dated 22.07.2006, which was submitted by

the Medical Officer of the Medical and Health Department of the

Government of Rajasthan, nor have the submissions advanced on

behalf of the appellant (though recorded) been considered in the

Order quashing the FIR no. 217 of 2006.

10. Considering the fact that the matter relating to FIR No. 217 of

2006 was under investigation and merely on the assumption that

the FIR of Deepak Gupta (wrongly mentioned as that of the

respondents no.2 and 3) was not registered immediately and also

keeping in view the Final Report submitted in the FIR No.218 of

2006 was not taken into consideration by the Rajasthan High

Court, we are of the opinion that the Rajasthan High Court has

erred in quashing the FIR No.217 of 2006.

11. Accordingly, we set aside the Order dated 23.01.2015 passed

by the Rajasthan High Court in SB Criminal Misc. Petition No.1144

of 2008 (Usha Gupta & anr vs State of Rajasthan & anr.) and direct

that the police shall submit its report under section 173 Cr.P.C.

after carrying out a complete and proper investigation relating to

FIR No.217 of 2006. Since, the matter has been pending for about

a decade and a half, we direct that the investigation be concluded

as expeditiously as possible.

With the aforesaid observations, this appeal stands allowed.




APRIL 09, 2021.


Leave a Reply

Sign In


Reset Password

Please enter your username or email address, you will receive a link to create a new password via email.