POOJA RANAversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

                      [2012] 7 S.C.R. 905


                         POOJA RANA                                  A
                                v.
               STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
             (Writ Petition (Crl.) No.109 of 2012)
                       AUGUST 27, 2012
                                                                     B
                [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND
              JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.]

      Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32 - Writ petition -
 Petitioner had married a person out of her free will - However, C
 her parents and maternal uncle had registered a criminal
 case against her husband - Prayer of petitioner for quashing
 FIR against petitioner's husband and for further direction to
 the State Authorities to register criminal case against her
parents and maternal uncle - FIR sought to be quashed not o
placed on record - The person to be granted protection i.e.
petitioner's husband as well as the complainants i.e. the
petitioner's parents and maternal uncle also not impleaded
 in the writ petition - Maintainability of the writ petition - Held: It
is not the case of the petitioner that she had made any attempt E
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 FIR against her parents and uncle but it was not
accepted - Counsel for the petitioner failed to explain as why
the necessary parties i.e. the complainants as well as the F
person for whom the protection is sought have not been
impleaded - Approach of the petitioner's counsel was casual
- The petition is therefore liable to be dismissed - However,
in facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner, if so
advised, may move the High Court for appropriate relief by
filing appropriate petition - Penal Code, 1860 - ss.363, 366, G
328 and 504.

     Surinder Singh v. Central Government & Ors. AIR 1986
                               905
                                                                    H
    906      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012] 7 S.C.R.


A   SC 2166: 1986 (3) SCR 946 and Re: Sanjiv Datta (1995) 3
    sec 619: 1995 (3) SCR 450 - relied on.
                           Case Law Reference:
          1986 (3) SCR 946             relied on             Para 5
B
          1995 (3) SCR 450             relied on             Para 7

        CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Crl.)
    No. 109 of 2012.

c         Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

          Vivek Gupta for the Petitioner.

          The following order of the Court was delivered

D                                 ORDER

         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
E   '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
F 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 maternal uncle had registered a criminal case
G 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
H   petitioner was asked to explain as under what circumstances
    POOJA RANA v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.                    907


such a writ petition can be entertained as it suffers from          A
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       B
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                c
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
                                                                   0
the petition to remain present in the court so that he can explain
as to whether such a petition is maintainable or ought to have
been filed.

    5. In Surinder Singh v. Central Government & Ors., AIR          E
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 F
    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 G
    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     H
    908      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012] 7 S.C.R.


A   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:
8
    Sanjiv Datta, (1995) 3 SCC 619, held as under:

          "..... 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
C         matters are called out, the filing of incomplete and
          inaccurate pleadings - many times even illf?gible 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,
D         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
E         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
F         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
G   for appropriate relief by filing appropriate petition.

    B.B.B.                                  Writ Petition dismissed.