SGT UNIVERSITY

PROJECT OF
DRAFTING, PLEADING, CONVEYANCING
Topic-Quashing of the FIR under section
482 of the CRPC

Submitted to: Azad

Submitted by: Divya gupta
BBALLB (161203013)

TABLE OF CONTENT
1. Introduction

2. Powers of the high court under section 482 CRPC.

3. Why the need for section 482 CRPC?

4. Quashing of criminal proceeding in matrimonial (cases filed under section 498 A

5. Condition for use of inherent power

6. What section 151 of CPC says?

7. Reasons for providing these power

8. Limitation to exercise the inherent powers

9. Drafting

10. Bibliography
 ABBREVIATIONS

1. Cr pc……………………………………………………criminal procedure code

2. HC……………………………………………………….High court
3. VS………………………………………………………..Versus
4. SEC………………………………………………………Section
5. NO……………………………………………………….Number
6. FIR………………………………………………………..First information report
7. U/S………………………………………………………..Under Section
1. Introduction

Section 482, under the 37th Chapter of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, titled
‘Miscellaneous’ 1deals with Inherent powers of the Court. The code under this section lays out
the provisions for quashing of criminal proceedings. Section 482 of CrPC states;

“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.“

This Section deals with such a power of the high court which is essential to it or which is its
characteristic attribute. The section allows the court to pass any order so as to ensure justice. It
also gives the court power to quash the proceedings of lower court or to quash FIRs. According
to Black’s law dictionary, quash means ‘to overthrow or abate or vacate or make void’. In other
words, quashing of criminal proceedings means putting an end to the legal machinery which was
set into motion by the filing of an FIR or Complaint.

Section 482  of the Cr.P.C.  is an exact reproduction of Section 561- A  of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1898. It was added by the Code of Criminal Procedure  (Amendment) Act of 1923 as
the High Courts were unable to render complete justice even in the cases where illegality was
apparent. The inherent powers of the High Court as provided under Section 561 – A   of the 1898
Code was vested in the High Court in accordance with Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

1
It means an application whereby any proceeding is insititued including under rule 46A,58,97 and 100 of order XXI
of the code and an analogous proceeding under the Indian companies act ,1913; but does not include suit or an
appeal or a proceeding in insolvency or a proceeding in execution of a decree or order.
 2. Powers of the High Court under section 482 CR.P.C?

Inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. include powers to quash FIR, investigation or any
criminal proceedings pending before the High Court or any Courts subordinate to it and are of
wide magnitude and ramification. Such powers can be exercised to secure ends of justice,
prevent abuse of the process of any court and to make such orders as may be necessary to give
effect to any order under this Code, depending upon the facts of a given case. The court can
always take note of any miscarriage of justice and prevent the same by exercising its powers u/s
482 of Cr.P.C. These powers are neither limited nor curtailed by any other provisions of the
Code. However, such inherent powers are to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

It is well settled that the inherent powers under section 482 can be exercised only when no
other remedy is available to the litigant2 and NOT where a specific remedy is provided by the
statute. If an effective alternative remedy is available, the High Court will not exercise its powers
under this section, especially when the applicant may not have availed of that remedy.

The HC in deciding matters under Section 482 should be guided by following twin objectives, as
laid down in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466:

1. Prevent abuse of the process of the court.

2. Secure the ends of justice.

2
It means a person involved in lawsuit.
 3. Why the need for Section 482 CR.P.C?

The powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C are partly administrative and partly
judicial. The section was added by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act of 1923,
as the High Courts were unable to render complete justice even if in a given case the illegality
was palpable and apparent.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Muniswamy AIR 1977 SC 1489, held that
the section envisages 3 circumstances in which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised,
namely, “to give effect to an order under CrPC, to prevent abuse of the process of the court, and
to secure the ends of justice“.

The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court went on to state that, “The section is a sort of reminder to
the High Courts that they are not merely courts in law, but also courts of justice and possess
inherent powers to remove injustice“.

The inherent power 3of the High Court is an inalienable attribute of the position it holds with
respect to the courts subordinate to it. They are necessarily judicial when they are exercisable
with respect to a judicial order and for securing the ends of justice. The jurisdiction under
Section 482 is discretionary; therefore, the high court may refuse to exercise the discretion if a
party has not approached it with clean hands.

3
An authority possessed without its being derived from another.it is a right ,ability or faculty of doing a thing,
without receiving that right, ability or faculty from another.
 4. Quashing of criminal proceedings in matrimonial cases (Cases filed

under Section 498A)

The purpose of drafting Section 498A was to help the hapless women who were the worst
victims and were harmed at the hands of their husbands. In the present times, there have been
several instances where the section is misused. The situation became so severe that various non-
government organizations (NGOs) came up for the purpose of advocating the repeal of Section
498.

The Supreme Court of India has, many a time, 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. This is so because there are various cases where
the purpose of the litigation is the ulterior motive of settling personal scores.

The following cases discuss quashing of proceedings in such matters;

1. The Supreme Court of India observed in the case of Sushil Kumar Sharma v.
Union of India (19 July 2005),

“…The object of the provision is the 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 ignominy suffered during and prior to trial. Sometimes adverse
media coverage adds to the misery...”

2. 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 matrimonial4 cases

4
It is a legal proceeding in matrimonial cases- divorce and separation on demand of one of the spouses. Certain
clarifications regarding matrimonial cases must immediately be added.
 to secure the ends of justice in view of the special facts and circumstances of the case even
where the offences alleged are non-compoundable5.

2.The judgment in B S Joshi v. State of Haryana was used by the Delhi High Court to quash
6
criminal proceedings which had been initiated under Section 498 – A of the Indian Penal Code
in the case of Girish Pandey v. State (20 October 2016).

3.Furthermore, it was held in the case of Geeta Mehrotra v. State of Uttar Pradesh (17 October
2012) by the Supreme Court 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. CONDITION FOR USEOF INHERENT POWER

1. The jurisdiction7 is completely discretionary8. The high court can refuse to use the power.

2. The jurisdiction is not limited to cases that are pending before the high court .It can consider
any case that come to its notice(in appeal, revision or otherwise).

3. The high court has the power to provide relief to the accused even if she/he has not filed a
petition under section 482.

4. The power under section 482 is not intended to scuttle justice at the threshold 9 but to secure
justice.5. So long as inherent power of section 482 CRPC is in statute, the exercise of such power
is not impermissible.10

5
It is a offence which are the more serious offence in which the parties cannot compromise.
6
Reject as invalid, especially by legal procedure.
7
The official power to make legal decision and judgements.
8
It means the acting on one own authority and judgment. In law as to legal rulings, such as whether evidence is
excluded at a trial , may be exercised by a judge.

9
a point of beginning : a minimum requirement for further action specifically : a determination (as of fact
or the existence of a reasonable doubt) upon which something else (as further consideration or a right of
action) hinges the threshold for inquiry.
10
not permitted or allowed.
6. WHAT SECTION 151 OF CPC SAYS?

The section 151 of the code says that “Nothing in this code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise
affect the inherent powers of the court to make such order as may be necessary for ends of justice
or to prevent abuse of the court”. Hence , the inherent powers of the court are complimentary
powers the court is free to exercise for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process
of the court.

7. REASON FOR PORVIDING THESE POWER :-

The reason behind the legislature to provide for the provisions protecting the inherent powers of
the court is clear that the legislature in incapable to consider all the possible circumstances that
may arise in the future litigations. And in such unforeseen circumstances, the inherent powers by
virtue of sec. 151 comes to the rescue the court, and to the legislature and such powers are
exercised in absence of expressed powers by the code.

8. LIMITATIONS TO EXERCISE THE INHERENT POWERS:-

1. These powers can be exercised only in the absence of an express provision in the code.

2. These powers can’t be exercised in conflict with express provision in the code.

3. These can be exercised in exceptional cases.

4. Substantive rights of the parties shall not be taken away.

5. To direct an arbitrator to make an award afresh.

6. To set aside an order which was right at the time of its issuance.

9. DRAFTING
 IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF NEW DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF:

ROHIT ……………………………………………………………………..PETITIONER

VS

POOJA …………………………………………………………………………..RESPONDENT

PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,

1973 PRAYING THIS HON’BLE COURT TO PASS NECESSARY ORDERS AND
DIRECTION THEREBY QUASHING AND CANCELLING THE FIR NO.74/2019,
UNDER SECTION 498-A/406/34(Add necessary section) I.P.C.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-

1. That the marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 01.1.2019
according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. The marriage was duly consummated and out of this
wedlock no issue was born.

2. That the petitioner is doing the job in ICIC bank and respondent is a house wife who is the
complainant.

3. That there is irretrievable break down of the marriage due to incompatible behaviour, conduct
and temperament of the parties. Accordingly, the parties to the petition have been living
separately since 2 month and have not been able to live together or cohabited since then.

4. That a complaint filed in CAW Cell against the petitioner by the respondent on 01.10.2019
and the said complaint converted into FIR No. 74 under section 498- A/406/34/(Add necessary
section) I.P.C.
5. That due to the intervention of the Mediation Centre/Relatives, both the petitioner and
Respondent have mutually agreed before the Mediation Cell that their marriage may be dissolved
and that there shall be no claim whatsoever made out against any of the parties or against each
other and they shall be bound by the conditions settled amongst them before the Mediation Cell.

6. That both the parties have agreed upon a settlement that the Petitioner will pay a total sum of
Rs1,50,000/- on account of full and final settlement of all past present and future claims of all
kinds in lieu of dowry articles, maintenance present past and future and also includes all claims
of permanent alimony.

7. That the said amount will be divided in 3 installments of Rs50, 000/- at the time of First
motion to the petitioner , second installment of Rs50,000/- was paid at the time of second motion
and last and final installment of Rs50,000/- being paid at the time of quashing of the FIR No. 74
u/s 498-A/406/34/(Add necessary section) IPC.

8. That the respondent has no more grievances against the petitioner. The respondent is not
willing to support the imputations made in the said FIR against the petitioner because the dispute
in question has already been settled/compromised between the parties. In these circumstances,
there are no chances of successful prosecution and conviction of the petitioner. Therefore, no
fruitful purpose will be served while allowing the criminal proceedings in question to continue.

9. That the compromise between the parties has been arrived with their free consent, without any
threat or pressure or coercion or undue influence.

10. That the respondent has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed qua the petitioner.

11. That the Petitioner crave leave of the Hon'ble Court to urge such further additional ground
(s), at the time of hearing of this petition, which have not been specifically taken up in this
petition.

12. That the Petitioner have no alternative and efficacious remedy except to approach this
Hon'ble Court for seeking relief claimed in the petition.
13. That the Petitioner have not filed any other similar petition seeking quashing of complaint
case in question either before this Hon'ble Court or before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

14. That the court has the jurisdiction to entertain and try this petition.

PRAYER

It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to quash the FIR No 74 under section 498-A/406/34/(Add necessary section) I.P.C. in
the interest of justice.

DATED: 09.10.2020 PETITIONER

New Delhi THROUGH COUNSEL

ADV. DIVYA GUPTA

10. BIBLIOGRAPHY

blog.ipleaders.in
www.lawnotes4u.in

www.legalcrystal.com

lawsisto.com