SCOPE OF THE POWERS OF THE

HIGH COURT UNDER SECTION 482

OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL

PROCEDURE, 1973

BY: - NITISH KAUSHIK

Table of Contents

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES...................................................................................................... 3

ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................... 5

QUASHING FIR UNDER S. 482: ............................................................................................ 9

Quashing of Second FIR on petition under Section 482 CrPC................................................ 10

Quashing of FIR when investigation has not commenced....................................................... 11

Quashing FIR where cognizance not yet taken........................................................................ 11

FIR disclosing offence ............................................................................................................. 11

Quashing FIR when the power of investigation has been exercised mala fide ....................... 13

Quashing of FIR where allegations not constituting an offence .............................................. 13

Landmark and Latest Judgements of the SC on the Issue of Quashing FIR............................ 15

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................ 19

Bibliography ............................................................................................................................ 20

2
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Agra Electricity Board v. State of U.P., AIR 1960 All 176 .................................................................... 4
Ajit Pramod Kumar Jogi v. Union of India, 2004 CrLJ 3304 (3314) ..................................................... 9
Arjun Shankar Shukla v. State of U.P., AIR 1999 SC 2554 ................................................................... 3
Arnavaz v. Alcobex Metals Ltd., 2005 CrLJ 610 (612) (Raj) ............................................................ 9, 11
Ayub Khan v. State of Orissa, 2000 (2) Crimes 338 (Ori) .................................................................... 10
Balkar Singh v. Jagdish Kumar, 2005 CrLJ 1712 (1715) (SC) .............................................................. 6
Bijon Mahanta v. State of Assam, 2009 (3) GLR 148 (Gauh) ................................................................ 8
Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ravi Shanker Srivastava, 2006 CrLJ 4050 (4052,4053) ................. 5
Dhanvinder Singh v. State of NCT Delhi, 2002 (3) Crimes 343 ............................................................. 7
Eastern Spinning Mills v. Shri Rajiv Poddar, AIR 1985 SC 1668 ....................................................... 11
Guruduth Prabhu v. M.S. Krishna Bhat, 1999 CrLJ 3909 (Kant) ........................................................ 10
Haridas Mundra v. State of W.B., AIR 1970 Cal 485............................................................................. 5
Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd. and Others, (2006) 6 SCC 736 ...................................... 14
J. Raghuraj Gond v. Sub-Inspector of Police, Kukapally, 2005 CrLJ 1301 (1305) (AP) ....................... 8
Jagdish Prasad v. State of U.P., 1991 CrLJ 1624, 1620......................................................................... 7
Kavita v. State, 2000 CrLJ 315 (Del) ...................................................................................................... 3
Lalit Mohan Mondal v. Dehoyendra Nath Chatterjee, AIR 1982 SC 785.............................................. 3
M.L. Bhatt v. M.K. Pandita, 2002 (4) Crimes 343 (343,344) (SC) ......................................................... 7
Madan Gopal v. State, 2001 (3) Crimes 87 (89) (Del) ........................................................................... 7
Madhu Limaye v. Maharashtra, AIR 1978 SC 47 .................................................................................. 3
Mangal Chouhan v. State, 1983 CrLJ 279 (Cal-DB) ............................................................................ 11
Manjula Sinha v. State of U.P., (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 271 ...................................................................... 12
Manohar M. Galani v. Ashok N. Advani, 2000 CrLJ 406 ....................................................................... 7
Mast Ram v. Smt. Shanti Devi, (2002) 2 HLR 459 ................................................................................. 6
Mathews Peter v. Asstt. Police Inspector, (2002) 93 Cut LT 651 .......................................................... 5
Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, AIR 1998 SC 128 ...................................................... 5
Prashant Bharti v. State of NCT of Delhi, Criminal Appeal No. 175 of 2013 (Arising out of SLP
(Criminal) No. 1800 of 2009) ........................................................................................................... 15
Pratibha v. Rameshwari Devi, 2008 CrLJ 329 (331) (SC) ..................................................................... 8
Pulgaon Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, 2001 CrLJ 610 (Bom) ............. 10
Raj Kapoor v. State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1980 SC 258........................................................................... 3
Ravider Wadhwa v. State, 1996 CrLJ 2700 (Del) ................................................................................. 10
Rishipal v. State of Harayan, 1997 CrLJ 1438 (P&H) ........................................................................... 9
S. Rajendra v. K.A.S. Rama Appaswamy, 1981 CrLJ 1298 (Kant) ....................................................... 10
S.C. Mitra v. Raja Kali Charan, (1927) 3 Luck 287............................................................................... 3
S.K. Kothari v. State of Rajasthan, 2004 (1) Crimes 440 (443,444) (Raj).............................................. 8
Sagat Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2003 (2) Crimes 33 (36) (Raj) ......................................................... 6
Sanapareddy Maheedhar Seshagiri v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2008 SC 784 ............................. 6
Sandhu Singh, AIR 1962 All 193............................................................................................................ 4
Saumya Navit v. State of Karnataka, 1998 CrLJ 14 (Kant) .................................................................. 10
Shiv Shankar Singh v. State of Bihar, (2012) 1 SCC 130 ..................................................................... 16

3
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Goloconda Linga Swami, (2004) 6 SCC 522.............................................. 7
State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, 1991 CrLJ 1438, 1448 (SC) ................................................................. 10
State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335 ................................................................... 13
State of Orissa & Anr. v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo, (2005) 13 SCC 540 ..................................................... 14
State of U.P. v. Mohammad Naim, AIR 1964 SC 703 ............................................................................ 3
State of W.B. v. Narayan K. Patodia, AIR 200 SC 1405 ........................................................................ 9
Suneet Gupta v. Anil Triloknath Sharma, (2008) 11 SCC 670 ............................................................... 4
Sunita Jain v. Pawan Kumar Jain, (2008) 2 SCC 705............................................................................ 3
Suresh Chandra Swain v. State of Orissa, 1988 CrLJ 1175 (Ori) .......................................................... 9
Swaran Singh v. State, 2008 CrLJ 4369 (4370) ...................................................................................... 7
T. Vengama Naidu v. T. Doraswamy Naidu, (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 231.................................................... 7
T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, AIR 2001 SC 2637 ................................................................................ 8
Trilochan Singh Johar v. State, (2002) 62 DRJ 787 ............................................................................. 10
Union of India v. B.R. Bajaj, 1994 CrLJ 2086 (SC) ............................................................................. 10
Union of India v. B.R. Bajaj, AIR 1994 SC 1256 ................................................................................... 9
Vijay Kumar v. State of Punjab, 1996 CrLJ 3070 (P&H) ..................................................................... 10
Vinod Kumar Sethi v. State of Punjab, AIR 1982 (P&H) 372 (FB) ..................................................... 11
Vinod Kumar Sethi v. State of Punjab, AIR 1982 P&H 372, 381 (FB) ................................................ 12
Vishnu (1942) Nag 107 ........................................................................................................................... 4

Statutes

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Constitution of India, 1950

4
ABSTRACT

Scope of the powers of the High Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973: - This section has not given increased power to High Court which it did not

possess before the section was enacted. It gives no new powers. It only provides that those

which the court already inherently possessed shall be preserved, and is inserted lest it should

be considered that the only powers possessed by the courts are those expressly conferred by

the court and no inherent power survived the passing of the Code.1 Though the jurisdiction

exists and is wide in its scope it is a rule of practice that it will only be exercised in

exceptional cases,2 in rarest of rare cases.3 The power under section 482 are to be exercised

sparingly and not as an appellate/revisional court.4 The Supreme Court has held that the

following principles would govern the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of a High Court

given by Section 482 : (1) the power is not to be resorted to if there is a specific provision in

the Code for the redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party; (2) it should be exercised

very sparingly to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of

justice; (3) it should not be exercised as against the express bar of law engrafted in any other

provisions of the Code.5 The inherent power overrides the express bar against revision

provided under S. 341 of the Code.6 Similarly, the power under S. 382 is not subjected to the

limitations imposed on the power of revision conferred by S. 397.7

It cannot be invoked with respect to any matter covered by the specific provisions of the

Code or if its exercise would be inconsistent with any of the specific provisions of the Code,8

1
State of U.P. v. Mohammad Naim, AIR 1964 SC 703
2
S.C. Mitra v. Raja Kali Charan, (1927) 3 Luck 287
3
Sunita Jain v. Pawan Kumar Jain, (2008) 2 SCC 705
4
Kavita v. State, 2000 CrLJ 315 (Del)
5
Madhu Limaye v. Maharashtra, AIR 1978 SC 47
6
Lalit Mohan Mondal v. Dehoyendra Nath Chatterjee, AIR 1982 SC 785
7
Raj Kapoor v. State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1980 SC 258
8
Arjun Shankar Shukla v. State of U.P., AIR 1999 SC 2554

5
or when there is another remedy available, e.g. a civil proceeding9 or revision,10 or when a

remedy is available to the applicant to approach the Supreme Court under Article 137 of the

Constitution to review High Court’s order dismissing petition for special leave, 11 or when the

powers of the High Court are expressly limited to a particular matter under an Act.12

In State of Punjab v. Kasturi Lal,13 The Supreme Court observed that exercise of power under

S. 482 of the Code in a case of this nature is the exception and not the rule. The section does

not confer any new powers on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power which the

court possessed before the enactment of the Code. It envisages three circumstances under

which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under

the Code, (ii) to prevent the abuse of the process of Court, (iii) and to otherwise secure the

ends of justice. While exercising powers under the section though wide has to be exercised

sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests

specifically laid down in the section itself.

The powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and

the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise, Court must be careful to

see that its decision in the exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The High

Court being the highest Court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie

decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence

has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, when factual or

legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient

material, of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the

9
Suneet Gupta v. Anil Triloknath Sharma, (2008) 11 SCC 670
10
Agra Electricity Board v. State of U.P., AIR 1960 All 176
11
Sandhu Singh, AIR 1962 All 193
12
Vishnu (1942) Nag 107
13
2004 CrLJ 3866 (3868) (SC)

6
High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any

stage.

All Courts, whether civil or criminal possess, in the absence of any express provision, as

inherent in their constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do right and to undo a

wrong in course of administration of justice on the principle “quando lex aliquid alicui

concedit, concedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsae esse non potest” (when the law gives a

person anything it gives him that without which it cannot exist).14 It would be an abuse of

process of the Court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent

promotion of justice.15

Where the High Court has no jurisdiction in revision to interfere with any judgement, order or

sentence passed by a judge of the High Court in the exercise of its original criminal

jurisdiction, the provisions of this section cannot be invoked since the question there is one of

jurisdiction.16 The High Court can exercise its power of judicial review in criminal matters.

The High Court can exercise this power under Art. 226 of the Constitution or under S. 482

Cr.P.C., either to prevent abuse of any process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of

justice. Exercise of such power would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

One of the cases where such power can be exercised is where the first information report or

the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted to their entirety do not

prima constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. 17 The High Court would

exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under S. 482, CrPC where it finds that non interference

shall result in abuse of the process of the court or failure of justice18, or where grave injustice

14
Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ravi Shanker Srivastava, 2006 CrLJ 4050 (4052,4053)
15
Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ravi Shanker Srivastava, 2006 CrLJ 4050 (4052,4053)
16
Haridas Mundra v. State of W.B., AIR 1970 Cal 485
17
Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, AIR 1998 SC 128
18
Mathews Peter v. Asstt. Police Inspector, (2002) 93 Cut LT 651

7
is shown to have been caused and requires to be undone,19 Where the complaint does not

make out any triable case against the petitioner.20 The High Court would not quash complaint

or FIR merely on the statement of the Counsel for the State for withdrawal of the case, the

decision of the government to withdraw the prosecution is an irrelevant ground.21

If the Court is satisfied that there is great miscarriage of justice or abuse of the process of the

Court or the required statutory provision has not been complied with or there is failure of

justice, in that event, it is but the duty of the Court to have it corrected at the inception.22

Where the criminal proceedings lodged would be mere result in harassment to the petitioner,

the proceeding would be quashed.23

19
Mast Ram v. Smt. Shanti Devi, (2002) 2 HLR 459
20
Balkar Singh v. Jagdish Kumar, 2005 CrLJ 1712 (1715) (SC)
21
Balkar Singh v. Jagdish Kumar, 2005 CrLJ 1712 (1715) (SC)
22
Sagat Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2003 (2) Crimes 33 (36) (Raj)
23
Sanapareddy Maheedhar Seshagiri v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2008 SC 784

8
QUASHING FIR UNDER S. 482:

In quashing FIR, the High Court would be entitled to only examine the allegations made in

the FIR but would not be entitled to appreciate by way of shifting the materials collected in

course of investigation including the statements recorded under S.161, CrPC.24 At this stage

the correctness or otherwise of the allegations in the FIR is not to be seen by the High Court,

and that will be seen at the trial. It has to be seen that whether on a perusal of the FIR a prima

facie offence is made out or not.25 Interference at the threshold with the FIR is to be in very

exceptional circumstances.26 Whether the FIR does not disclose the commission of an offence

without anything being added or subtracted from the recitals thereof, FIR would be quashed

the Court would not embark upon any enquiry in a case where the First Information Report

discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, to find whether some person was actually

involved in that case or not. This is the function purely entrusted to the Investigating Officer

of Police and the Court will not assume the jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer to arrive

at a conclusion and to give a finding which normally a police officer is supposed to give in

terms of S. 169.27 The quashing of, FIR and investigation after elaborate discussion of the

merits of the case was held not proper.28 While considering the question of quashing FIR on

petition under S. 482 Cr.P.C., pre-judging the prosecution case by examining its weakness

and contradictions is not permissible.29 FIR is to be quashed only very sparingly and with

circumspection and only in the rarest of the rare cases, 30 when no offence is spelt therein.31

The Court is entitled to exercise its inherent jurisdiction for quashing a criminal proceeding

or an FIR when the allegations made to the same do not disclose the commission of an

24
M.L. Bhatt v. M.K. Pandita, 2002 (4) Crimes 343 (343,344) (SC)
25
Swaran Singh v. State, 2008 CrLJ 4369 (4370)
26
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Goloconda Linga Swami, (2004) 6 SCC 522
27
Jagdish Prasad v. State of U.P., 1991 CrLJ 1624, 1620
28
Manohar M. Galani v. Ashok N. Advani, 2000 CrLJ 406
29
Madan Gopal v. State, 2001 (3) Crimes 87 (89) (Del)
30
Dhanvinder Singh v. State of NCT Delhi, 2002 (3) Crimes 343
31
T. Vengama Naidu v. T. Doraswamy Naidu, (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 231

9
offence and that it depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.32 Where complaint

for offences under S.406 and 498A was filed by the wife after the accused husband had filed

divorce petition, and six months after she had left the matrimonial home, the order of the

High Court quashing the criminal proceedings on petition under S. 482 CrPC was held

proper.33 Where FIR is registered on reference being made by the Criminal Court, there is

hardly any scope of making allegations as to mala fide exercise of power, FIR would not be

quashed.34 FIR would not be quashed merely on the ground that the same has been filed with

mala fide and evil design.35

Where allegations in FIR do not prima facie disclose commission of criminal an offence, FIR

would be quashed.36

Quashing of Second FIR on petition under Section 482 CrPC: - A second FIR

based on based on the same facts is not permissible. But where the facts and allegations of the

earlier FIR are different from the facts and allegations of the second FIR, the second FIR

would not be quashed.37 A person cannot be harassed twice or made accused I two FIRs in

respect of the same matter or connected matters hence second FIR would be quashed on

petition under S. 482 CrPC.

If the allegations made in the FIR do not make out any case against the accused or the

allegations are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever

reach to such a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against such accused,

32
Pratibha v. Rameshwari Devi, 2008 CrLJ 329 (331) (SC)
33
Pratibha v. Rameshwari Devi, 2008 CrLJ 329 (331) (SC)
34
J. Raghuraj Gond v. Sub-Inspector of Police, Kukapally, 2005 CrLJ 1301 (1305) (AP)
35
Bijon Mahanta v. State of Assam, 2009 (3) GLR 148 (Gauh)
36
S.K. Kothari v. State of Rajasthan, 2004 (1) Crimes 440 (443,444) (Raj)
37
T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, AIR 2001 SC 2637

10
in such cases with a view to prevent the abuse of process of the Court, the High Court would

be competent to quash the FIR to secure the ends of justice.38

Under S.482, CrPC the High Court has the power to quash an FIR or even a complaint

subject to limitations and conditions laid down in various judgements. However this power

has to be exercised by the High Courts very sparingly with circumspection and also in rarest

of rare cases.

Quashing of FIR when investigation has not commenced: - The High Court

cannot quash the FIR when the police has not even commenced the investigation and no

proceedings at all is pending in any Court in pursuance of the FIR. 39 Investigation could not

be quashed because FIR does not disclose any offence, because investigation could be carried

on the basis of other material.40

Quashing FIR where cognizance not yet taken: - Where Magistrate has not yet

taken cognizance of the offence, the FIR cannot be quashed under S. 482.41

FIR disclosing offence: - An FIR should be quashed only in rarest of rare cases. Where a

prima facie case is disclosed in FIR, there is no question of quashing the same42 on the mere

ground of delay in filing FIR. Where the FIR discloses the offence, High Court would not be

justified in quashing the first information report.43 If the facts mentioned in the FIR prima

facie disclose cognizable offence, than the High Court is required to look into the veracity,

reliability, sufficiency and adequate proof of the facts alleged and to make a meticulous

scrutiny and whether all the ingredients are precisely spelled out in the complaint is not the

38
Arnavaz v. Alcobex Metals Ltd., 2005 CrLJ 610 (612) (Raj)
39
State of W.B. v. Narayan K. Patodia, AIR 200 SC 1405
40
Suresh Chandra Swain v. State of Orissa, 1988 CrLJ 1175 (Ori)
41
Rishipal v. State of Harayan, 1997 CrLJ 1438 (P&H)
42
Ajit Pramod Kumar Jogi v. Union of India, 2004 CrLJ 3304 (3314)
43
Union of India v. B.R. Bajaj, AIR 1994 SC 1256

11
need at this stage. Where petitioner fails to show that allegations in FIR/Complaint do not

constitute offence, FIR/Complaint cannot be quashed.44 Where FIR discloses offence the

same cannot be quashed before the close of the investigation.45 If on consideration of the

allegations made in light the light of the statement made an oath, the ingredients of the

offence are disclosed and the complaint is not mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event

there would be no justification for interference by the High Court. Where prima facie case is

made out, FIR cannot be quashed under S. 482, CrPC, evidentiary value of the statements

cannot be assessed in petition under S. 482, CrPC.46 Where FIR discloses the commission of

alleged offences, and mere denial by the accused is no ground for quashing the FIR. 47 Where

FIR discloses cognizable offence, the FIR cannot be quashed under S. 482, CrPC.48 FIR in a

case under S.376, IPC would not be quashed merely because trial would put the prosecutrix

to future embarrassment.49

If allegation in FIR Constitute offence prosecution cannot be quashed, even if the prosecution

is mala fide,50, or because the offence are of technical nature.51

The High Court cannot exercise its inherent power under S. 482, CrPC to quash FIR or

investigation by police in pursuance of a direction by Magistrate under S. 156(3).52 Whether

allegations in the complaint are cryptic discloses no offence, order for investigation under

S.156 (3) CrPC, is without jurisdiction, can be quashed under S. 482 CrPC/ Art 226 of the

Constitution.53 There cannot be a blanket bar against the quashing of a proceeding at the

investigation stage. If the High Court is convinced that the first information report does not

44
Saumya Navit v. State of Karnataka, 1998 CrLJ 14 (Kant)
45
Ayub Khan v. State of Orissa, 2000 (2) Crimes 338 (Ori)
46
Vijay Kumar v. State of Punjab, 1996 CrLJ 3070 (P&H)
47
Ravider Wadhwa v. State, 1996 CrLJ 2700 (Del)
48
Union of India v. B.R. Bajaj, 1994 CrLJ 2086 (SC)
49
Trilochan Singh Johar v. State, (2002) 62 DRJ 787
50
State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, 1991 CrLJ 1438, 1448 (SC)
51
Pulgaon Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, 2001 CrLJ 610 (Bom)
52
S. Rajendra v. K.A.S. Rama Appaswamy, 1981 CrLJ 1298 (Kant)
53
Guruduth Prabhu v. M.S. Krishna Bhat, 1999 CrLJ 3909 (Kant)

12
disclose a cognizable offence and that the continuation of an investigation, based on no

foundation would amount to an abuse of power of police, necessitating interference to secure

the ends of justice the inherent power will have to be exercised. The High Court will interfere

with the investigation only if non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice.54

Quashing FIR when the power of investigation has been exercised mala

fide: - Even if the First Information Report or its subsequent investigation purports to raise a

suspicion of a cognizable offence, the High Court can still quash if it is convinced that the

power of investigation has been exercised mala fide.55

Quashing of FIR where allegations not constituting an offence: - Ordinarily the

High Court shall be reluctant to interfere with FIR and investigation, but where FIR does not

disclose elements of cognizable offence, it can be quashed.56 FIR which did not contain any

facts constituting an offence may be quashed by the High Court in exercise of its inherent

powers.57

A full bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that there is no blanket bar against

the quashing of a first information report and the consequent investigation. It has laid down

the following requisite pre-condition s for the exercise of the power-

(i) When the FIR, even if accepted as true, discloses no reasonable suspicion of the

commission of a cognizable offence.

(ii) When the materials subsequently collected in the course of an investigation

further disclose no such cognizable offence at all;

54
Eastern Spinning Mills v. Shri Rajiv Poddar, AIR 1985 SC 1668
55
Vinod Kumar Sethi v. State of Punjab, AIR 1982 (P&H) 372 (FB)
56
Mangal Chouhan v. State, 1983 CrLJ 279 (Cal-DB)
57
Arnavaz v. Alcobex Metals Ltd., 2005 CrLJ 610 (612) (Raj)

13
 (iii) When the continuation of such investigation would amount to an abuse of power

by the police; and

(iv) That even if the FIR or its subsequent investigation purports to raise a suspicion of

a cognizable offence, the High Court can still quash if it is convinced that the

power of investigation has been exercised mala fide.58

After charge sheet against the accused has been filed and charge has been framed in the

case, the question of quashing FIR on petition filed under S. 482 CrPC would not arise.59

58
Vinod Kumar Sethi v. State of Punjab, AIR 1982 P&H 372, 381 (FB)
59
Manjula Sinha v. State of U.P., (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 271

14
Landmark and Latest Judgements of the SC on the Issue of Quashing FIR:

In the landmark case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal,60 this Court considered in detail

the provisions of Section 482 and the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings

or FIR. This Court summarized the legal position by laying down the following guidelines to

be followed by High Courts in exercise of their inherent powers to quash a criminal

complaint:

(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 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 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

concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and

60
State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335

15
continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the

concerned Act, 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.

In State of Orissa & Anr. v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo,61 it has been held that “it would not be

proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all

probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such

premises arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous

to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with.”

In Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd. and Others,62 a petition under Section 482

was filed to quash two criminal complaints. The High Court by a common judgment allowed

the petition and quashed both the complaints. The order was challenged in appeal to this

Court. While deciding the appeal, this Court laid down the following principles:

1. The High courts should not exercise their inherent powers to repress a legitimate

prosecution. The power to quash criminal complaints should be used sparingly and with

abundant caution.

2. The criminal complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the

alleged offence. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the criminal complaint, merely

on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the criminal proceedings

should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is

bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the alleged

offence.

61
State of Orissa & Anr. v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo, (2005) 13 SCC 540
62
Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd. and Others, (2006) 6 SCC 736

16
3. It was held that a given set of facts may make out (a) purely a civil wrong, or (b) purely a

criminal offence or (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or

a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law,

may also involve a criminal offence.

In Prashant Bharti v. State of NCT of Delhi,63 the Supreme Court of India laid down the

following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by

invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.:-

(i) Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and

indubitable, i.e., the material is of sterling and impeccable quality?

(ii) Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions

contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material 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) Step three, 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) Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the

court, and would not serve the ends of justice? If the answer to all the steps is in the

affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal -

proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise

63
Prashant Bharti v. State of NCT of Delhi, Criminal Appeal No. 175 of 2013 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal)
No. 1800 of 2009)

17
of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would

otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising wherefrom)

especially when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused.

If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court

should persuade it to quash the criminal proceedings.

In Shiv Shankar Singh v. State of Bihar,64 the Supreme Court expressed the view that the

law does not prohibit filing or entertaining of a second complaint even on the same facts,

provided that the earlier complaint has been decided on the basis of insufficient material or

has been passed without understanding the nature of the complaint or where the complete

facts could not be placed before the court and the applicant came to know of certain facts

after the disposal of the first complaint.

64
Shiv Shankar Singh v. State of Bihar, (2012) 1 SCC 130

18
CONCLUSION

Section 482 CrPC has a very wide scope and it’s really important for the courts to use it

properly and wisely. Many a time it has been observed that when there is an issue of money

(as for instance) the petitioner instead of filing a civil suit files an FIR against the other

person just to harass him. In such cases it becomes very important for the High Court to

quash such complaints as it leads to the abuse of the process of the lower courts. Section 482

of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 would enable the courts for providing proper justice

and also should be exercised to stop the public from filing fictitious complaints just to fulfil

their personal grudges. Justice Dhingra in one of his judgements said that “while exercising

powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. the Court has to keep in mind that it should not

ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or

whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. This is a

function of the Trial Court. Though the judicial process should not be an instrument in

exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances in consideration

before issuing process under Section 482 lest the Section becomes an in the hands of accused

persons to claim differential treatment only because the accused persons can spend money to

approach higher forums. This Section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short

circuit a prosecution and brings about its sudden death”.

19
Bibliography

Books

1. A. R. Amar, The Constitution and Criminal Procedure (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1997).
2. Dr.K.N.C Pillai, Kelkar’s Lectures on Criminal Law (9th edn.,Lucknow: Eastern Book
Company, 2006).
3. P. Ramanatha Aiyar’s Code of Criminal Procedure (7th edn., J.K. Mathur ed.,
Lucknow: Modern Law House, 2000).
4. S.C. Sarkar, Sarkar on the Code of Criminal Procedure (8th edn., S.C. Sarkar et al.
ed., New Delhi: Wadhwa and Company, 2005).

Journals
1. Criminal Law Journal

20