Spread the love
Mohd. Jufulkar Vs. The State of Uttarakhand
DATE OF JUDGMENT9th January,2024
COURTSupreme Court of India
APPELLANTMohd. Jufulkar 
RESPONDENTThe State of Uttarakhand and ANR
BENCHJustice B.R Gavai,Justice Sandeep Mehta.


In the case of Mohd. Jufulkar vs. The State of Uttarakhand, the Hon’ble Supreme Court gave it’s judgment in a precedented manner since the grounds for the which the appeal was made were later revoked. This case takes a deep dive into various ambits of the legal realms such as Habeas Corpus and also talks about the various aspects concerned to marriages under the Muslim law such as Nikah i.e marriage and out of the two types of mutual divorce a wife can give her husband under muslim law i.e Khula.In simpler words, it is like after throwing a delivery towards the batsman, the bowler appeals to the umpire for an LBW, where the umpire decides to rely on a third umpire review, however after having a talk with his wicketkeeper and the batsman,coming to a mutual consensus and to not waste further time in match, the bowler revokes his statement/request and asks the umpire to cancel the third umpire review decision.

Facts of the Case:

  1. The appellant was in a relationship with the complainant, where apparently this relationship of the complainant with the appellant was against the wilful wishes of the parents, whereas despite the turmoil the couple decided to reside together.
  2. A writ petition of Habeas Corpus was filed before the court by the father of the complainant wherein it was alleged by him that his daughter residing with the appellant was illegally detained and herein sought a direction for producing the complainant before the Hon’ble High Court.
  3. In the Habeas Corpus writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court  as per the order which was dated 19.07.2018, wherein girl who was 20 years of age and her name was Ms. Aisha.The also had an instance to interact with the girl wherein she seemed to be a responsible adult who was capable of taking her own decisions of her life.As per her categorical statement recorded before the court she stated that she wants to go with her husband, the respondent no.3.Henceforth the girl’s presence was exempted
  4. The court foresaw no role for itself , as the petitions failed and thereby it was further dismissed.As per her statement in person before the court that she wanted to be with her husband the court deemed that she was free to go with her husband as per wish.
  5. Consequent to this, the complainant and the appellant resided with each other for a long considerable period of time.However, due to discords between both the parties, both of them started living separately.
  6. After a while, an FIR was filed by the complainant at the Bhagwanpur,police station being no 474 of 2019 in the district of Haridwar with respect to the offences which are punishable under the ambit of Section 377, 376 and section 506 of IPC.
  7. As the senior learned judge of the High Court heard the matter, as per the impugned order the respected judge also heard and interacted with the complainant.Where she stated that she was forced to enter and solemnize this marriage contrary to her wishes as per the appellant.

Issues Raised:

  1. Whether the appellant should be held guilty under the ambit of section 377, 376 and section 506 of IPC?
  2. Whether the appellant should be acquitted from the ambit of section 377,376 and section 506 of the IPC?
  3. Whether the proceedings should be continued after considering the Affidavit submitted by the respondent?


As per the Hon’ble Court, it was clearly evident that even if the face value of the complainant was considered upon, the constituents which were required to constitute the offence under the ambit of section 376 of IPC were not clearly constructed. As per the affidavit submitted by the respondent to Hon’ble court it stated that she had married the appellant from her own will without any coercion from his side. Since there was an interference of the families after their one and a half years of marriage, there arose bitterness and differences between the appellant and the respondent following which she subsequently filed a criminal case under the ambit of section 165(3) Cr.P.C. However the appellant approached the Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand for quashing the aforementioned criminal case. However, in the meanwhile it wasn’t in the interests of both the parties to stay together, they mutually opted a consensus for Talaq (Divorce) which was further finalized on 07.09.2022 Talaq-E-Khula, the respondent also filed her affidavit at the High Court stating that since they’ve resolved the matter, she further doesn’t want to prosecute him for any charges. Considering the affirmation of the respondent that the affidavit filed by her stands to be true, the court found no further reason to continue the proceedings, because if done so it would be prejudicial to the interests of the complainant, the respondent. Henceforth the impugned order which was passed by the Hon’ble High Court on 11th October 2022 and the FIR no 474 of 2019 was quashed and set aside by this Hon’ble Court.


In the context of the present case if we look at the case of ADM Jabalpur vs Shivkant Shukla, in this case and the present case there arises a similarity that both the parties in these cases were denied writ of habeas corpus for the respective reasons, such as ADM Jabalpur case the writ was denied as it held unenforceable during emergency period and talking about the present case the writ was denied to the father of the complainant, where the complainant herself told the court that she residing with the appellant with her own free will as being a an adult with 20 years of age, she was capable to take her own decisions. Just after the issue was almost over the complainant filed a criminal complaint against the appellant with heinous allegations against him which again stirred the ingredients of this case.However after the settlement between both parties through the medium of Talaq-E-Khula, the tension in this matter boiled down as per the submission of affidavit by the complainant with the wish to not prosecute the appellant on aforementioned charges under the IPC.


In the case of Mohd. Jufulkar vs. The State of Uttarakhand and ANR, the powerful bench consisting of Justice B.R Gavai, Justice Sandeep Mehta known for delivering bold judgments such as Ballu vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, well it was held that the Hon’ble High Court needlessly interfered with a well constructed and reasoned Trial Court order. Talking about the present case, the learned bench gave the rightful verdict of quashing the FIR and dismissing the appeal further as this was in the best interests of both the parties. With such a verdict, the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the principles of natural justice while further safeguarding the realms of the ethos of Law. 


  1. chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2022/35972/35972_2022_3_23_49443_Judgement_09-Jan-2024.pdf (official judgement from scc site)
  2. https://lawbhoomi.com/case-analysis-adm-jabalpur-v-shivkant-shukla/ 
  3. https://www.barandbench.com/news/supreme-court-madhya-pradesh-high-court-setting-aside-acquittal-conjectures 

~ This Article is written by Krishav Dwivedi, a student at Vivekanand Education Society’s College of Law; Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.


Leave a Reply

Avatar placeholder

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *