http://www.legalserviceindia.

com/legal/article-187-quashing-of-fir-c
riminal-proceedings-under-section-482-of-crpc.html

Quashing of FIR/Criminal Proceedings Under

Section 482 of CrPC
By Albab Alam

Black's law dictionary defines quash as to overthrow / to abate / to

vacate / to annul / to make void. In simplest terms, quashing of criminal
proceedings would mean ceasing the legal machinery which had been
set in motion. This is usually done after a First Information Report
(hereinafter referred to as FIR) is filed, before the chargesheet-filing
stage. Still, proceedings can be revoked even after the chargesheet has
been filed but that is usually discouraged by the Supreme Court.

2) Legal provisions in India for quashing of criminal proceedings

Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Code/CrPC), 1973
has laid out the provisions for quashing of criminal proceedings.
Section 482 of CrPC says,

"Saving of inherent powers of High Court Nothing in this Code shall be

deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make
such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this
Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice."

The decisions of High Courts in this regard, ought to be guided by

following twin objectives, as laid down inNarinder Singh v. State of
Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466:
i) Prevent abuse of the process of court.
ii) Secure the ends of justice.

3) Rules governing the petitions which pray for quashing of criminal

proceedings

Section 482 of CrPC, which deals with the power of court to quash
criminal proceedings, hasn’t given the details of that what exactly
constitutes the inherent power of court. In that sense, the Code is very
vague as it doesn’t lay out the grounds on which the foundations of the
inherent power of court lay.
Furthermore, there has been consistent inconsistency in the judgments
of the Supreme Court of India with regard to the application of Section
482 of CrPC. Consequently, the application of section 482 of CrPC is a
very agitated issue in litigation along with being a strongly debated
concept in the legal academic circles.

Nevertheless, there are some cases which have got wide acceptance in
the legal fraternity and hence, are used as the minor guiding principles
(landmark cases being the major ones) governing the cases of quashing
of criminal proceedings.

Some of these cases are:

Prashant Bharti v. State of NCT of Delhi (2013) 9 SCC 293:
In order to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing the criminal
proceedings raised by an accused under Section 482 of the CrPC, the
following questions have to be analyzed by the High Court:
i) Whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable,
and indubitable, i.e., the material is of sterling and impeccable quality?

ii) Whether the material relied upon by the accused is sufficient to reject
and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the
material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and
condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false?

iii) Whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been
refuted by the prosecution / complainant; and / or the material is such,
that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution / complainant?

iv) Whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process
of the court and hence, would not serve the ends of justice?
If the answer to all the questions is in affirmative, the Court should
quash the proceedings by exercising its power under Section 482 of
CrPC.
Parbatbhai Ahir v. State of Gujarat (4 Oct, 2017):
In this case, the Supreme Court referred to various precedents and
summarised the following principles which ought to govern the power of
High Court under Section 482 of CrPC, "
i) Section 482preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent
an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The
provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves
powers which inhere in the High Court.
ii) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First
Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a
settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is
not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of
compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of
the court is governed by the provisions ofSection 320of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is
attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.

iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint

should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction underSection 482, the
High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the
exercise of the inherent power.

iv) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and
plenitude it has to be exercised;
a) To secure the ends of justice.
b) To prevent an abuse of the process of any court.

v) The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report

should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have
settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances
of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be
formulated.

vi) In the exercise of the power under ction 482 and while dealing with a
plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due
regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious
offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape
and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the
family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly
speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society.
The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the
overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious
offences.

vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases

which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute.
They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent
power to quash is concerned.
viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial,
financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an
essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing
where parties have settled the dispute.

ix) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in
view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of
aconviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding
would cause oppression and prejudice; and.

x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii)

and above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic
well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of
a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be
justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an
activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The
consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic
system will weigh in the balance."

4) Quashing of criminal proceedings in matrimonial cases

Section 498 - A was brought in by the Indian legislature to help the
hapless women who were worst victims of their husbands’ ire. But, of
late, there have been innumerable instances of misuse of Section 498 - A.
The situation has become so severe that there are dedicated
non-government organizations (NGOs) which solely focus on advocating
the repeal of Section 498. Also, there have been numerous instances in
India, where the courts have criticised the provisions of Section 498 – A,
decried its use, and prodded the legislature to have a look at the issue.
For instance, the Supreme Court of India observed in the case ofSushil
Kumar Sharma v. Union of India (19 July, 2005), "…The object of the
provision is prevention of the dowry menace. But as has been rightly
contended by the petitioner many instances have come to light where
the complaints are not bona fide and have filed the cases with oblique
motive. In such cases acquittal of the accused does not in all cases wipe
out the ignomy suffered during and prior to trial. Sometimes adverse
media coverage adds to the misery..."
The Supreme Court of India has, many a times, held that the proceedings
being pursued under Section 498 - A of IPC ought to be quashed if the
chances of conviction are very bleak or the case has been filed with
ulterior motives (in most cases, the ulterior motive is to settle personal
scores).
In B S Joshi v. State of Haryana 2003 (4) SCC 675, the Supreme Court
justified the exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the
proceedings in matrimonial cases to secure the ends of justice in view of
the special facts and circumstances of the case even where the
offences alleged are non-compoundable. This very judgment was used by
the Delhi High Court to quash criminal proceedings which had been
initiated under Section 498 - A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter
referred to as IPC), in the case of Girish Pandey v. State (20 Oct, 2016).

Furthermore, it has been held in the case of Geeta Mehrotra v. State of

Uttar Pradesh (17 Oct, 2012)by the Supreme Court of India that making
general allegations against husband without any conclusive proof is
ground enough to quash criminal proceedings instituted under Section
498- A of IPC.

5) Landmark cases related to abatement of criminal proceedings

Despite all the contradictions that appear in the various judgments of
the supreme Court with respect to quashing of criminal proceedings,
there are following two cases which are considered string authorities on
the subject:
In the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 AIR 604, the Supreme
Court had laid down following seven categories of cases in which the
court can quash criminal proceedings:
i. Where the allegations made in the FIR, even if taken at face value and
accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or
make out a case against the accused.
ii. Where the allegations in the FIR 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 ofSection 155(2) of the
Code.
iii. Where the allegations made in the FIR 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.
iv. 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, unless a Magistrate has issued an order for
the same, as contemplated under Section 155(2)of the Code.
v. Where the allegations made in the FIR are absurd to the extent that no
prudent man can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused.
vi. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions
of the Code or the concerned Act, under which a criminal proceeding is
instituted, with regard to the institution and continuance of the
proceedings and / or where there is a specific provision inthe Codeor the
concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the
aggrieved party.

vii. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide

intention 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 / or personal grudge.

In the case of R P Kapur v. State of Punjab 1960 AIR 862, the Supreme
Court of India held that criminal proceedings against a person can be
quashed if the case being dealt with belongs to any one of the following
three classes of cases:
i) Where there is a legal bar against institution or continuance of the
criminal proceedings.
ii) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute an offence, even if
taken at face value and in their entirety.
iii) Where the allegations made constitute an offence, but there is no
evidence which can prove them.