High Courts can quash an FIR even if chargesheet was filed while the petition filed under Section 482 CrPC was pending.
The Supreme Court recently clarified that the High Courts can quash an FIR even if chargesheet was filed while the petition filed under Section 482 CrPC was pending.
It is well settled that the High Court would continue to have the power to entertain and act upon a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR even when a chargesheet is filed by the police during the pendency of such petition, observed a bench comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose, Sanjay Kumar and SVN Bhatti.
The bench made this observation while quashing a case under Section 498A IPC instituted by a woman against her in-laws. The bench rejected the argument that the petition to quash FIR was no longer maintainable after the chargesheet was filed.
The bench observed that this position is well settled in Joseph Salvaraj A. vs. State of Gujarat and others (2011) 7 SCC 59. This principle was reiterated in Anand Kumar Mohatta and another vs. State (NCT of Delhi), Department of Home and another [(2019) 11 SCC 706.
On merits, the Court quashed the FIR after noting that the allegations are far-fetched and improbable.
Another report about the judgment can be read here - 'Far-Fetched, Vague Allegations' : Supreme Court Quashes Sec 498A IPC Case By Wife Against Mother-in-Law & Brothers-in-Law
Case Title : Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Criminal Appeal No. 1457 of 2015
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No. 1457 of 2015
Abhishek .... Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh .... Respondent
with
Criminal Appeal No. 1456 of 2015
J U D G M E N T
Sanjay Kumar, J
11. This being the factual backdrop, we may note at the very outset
that the contention that the appellants quash petition against the FIR was
liable to be dismissed, in any event, as the chargesheet in relation thereto
was submitted before the Court and taken on file, needs mention only to be
rejected. It is well settled that the High Court would continue to have the
power to entertain and act upon a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to
quash the FIR even when a chargesheet is filed by the police during the
9
pendency of such petition [See Joseph Salvaraj A. vs. State of Gujarat and
others {(2011) 7 SCC 59}]. This principle was reiterated in Anand Kumar
Mohatta and another vs. State (NCT of Delhi), Department of Home and
another [(2019) 11 SCC 706]. This issue, therefore, needs no further
elucidation on our part.
12. The contours of the power to quash criminal proceedings under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. are well defined. In V. Ravi Kumar vs. State represented
by Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Salem, Tamil Nadu and others
[(2019) 14 SCC 568], this Court affirmed that where an accused seeks
quashing of the FIR, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court, it is
wholly impermissible for the High Court to enter into the factual arena to
adjudge the correctness of the allegations in the complaint. In M/s.
Neeharika Infrastructure (P). Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and others
[Criminal Appeal No.330 of 2021, decided on 13.04.2021], a 3-Judge
Bench of this Court elaborately considered the scope and extent of the power
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It was observed that the power of quashing should
be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases,
such standard not being confused with the norm formulated in the context of
the death penalty. It was further observed that while examining the
FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon
an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations
10
made therein, but if the Court thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of
quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, and more particularly, the
parameters laid down by this Court in R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab (AIR
1960 SC 866) and State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others
[(1992) Supp (1) SCC 335], the Court would have jurisdiction to quash the
FIR/complaint.
13. Instances of a husbands family members filing a petition to quash
criminal proceedings launched against them by his wife in the midst of
matrimonial disputes are neither a rarity nor of recent origin. Precedents
aplenty abound on this score. We may now take note of some decisions of
particular relevance. Recently, in Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and others
vs. State of Bihar and others [(2022) 6 SCC 599], this Court had occasion
to deal with a similar situation where the High Court had refused to quash a
FIR registered for various offences, including Section 498A IPC. Noting that
the foremost issue that required determination was whether allegations made
against the in-laws were general omnibus allegations which would be liable to
be quashed, this Court referred to earlier decisions wherein concern was
expressed over the misuse of Section 498A IPC and the increased tendency
to implicate relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes. This Court
observed that false implications by way of general omnibus allegations made
in the course of matrimonial disputes, if left unchecked, would result in
11
misuse of the process of law. On the facts of that case, it was found that no
specific allegations were made against the in-laws by the wife and it was held
that allowing their prosecution in the absence of clear allegations against the
in-laws would result in an abuse of the process of law. It was also noted that a
criminal trial, leading to an eventual acquittal, would inflict severe scars upon
the accused and such an exercise ought to be discouraged.
14. In Preeti Gupta and another vs. State of Jharkhand and
another [(2010) 7 SCC 667], this Court noted that the tendency to implicate
the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon in
complaints filed under Section 498A IPC. It was observed that the Courts
have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints
and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with
matrimonial cases, as allegations of harassment by husbands close
relations, who were living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited
the place where the complainant resided, would add an entirely different
complexion and such allegations would have to be scrutinised with great care
and circumspection.
15. Earlier, in Neelu Chopra and another vs. Bharti [(2009) 10 SCC
184], this Court observed that the mere mention of statutory provisions and
the language thereof, for lodging a complaint, is not the be all and end all of
the matter, as what is required to be brought to the notice of the Court is the
12
particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role
played by each and every accused in the commission of that offence. These
observations were made in the context of a matrimonial dispute involving
Section 498A IPC
16. Of more recent origin is the decision of this Court in Mahmood Ali
and others vs. State of U.P. and others (Criminal Appeal No. 2341 of
2023, decided on 08.08.2023) on the legal principles applicable apropos
Section 482 Cr.P.C. Therein, it was observed that when an accused comes
before the High Court, invoking either the inherent power under Section 482
Cr.P.C. or the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution,
to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed, essentially on the ground
that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with
the ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances, the
High Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely.
It was further observed that it will not be enough for the Court to look into the
averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining
whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are
disclosed or not as, in frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a
duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the
record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due
care and circumspection, to try and read between the lines.
13
17. In Bhajan Lal (supra), this Court had set out, by way of
illustration, the broad categories of cases in which the inherent power under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. could be exercised. Para 102 of the decision reads as
follows:
102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant
provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of
law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to
the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the
inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have
extracted and reproduced above, we give the following
categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power
could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any
court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not
be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and
sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae
and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein
such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if they are
taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety
do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a
case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information
report and other materials, if any, accompanying the
FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of
the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within
the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made
in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in
support of the same do not disclose the commission of
any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a
non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted
by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as
contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on
the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a
14
just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar
engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the
Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is
instituted) to the institution and continuance of the
proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision
in the Code or the Act concerned, providing efficacious
redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view
to spite him due to private and personal grudge.