Quashing 482: Quashing Criminal Proceedings

As per Black’s dictionary, Quash means “To overthrow; to abate; to vacate; to annul; to make void”. In ordinary law terms, quash would mean stopping and ending criminal proceedings at the charge sheet or the FIR filed stage. Under the scope of the powers of the High Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, a High Court, under the rarest of rare cases, may quash FIR/Chargesheet.

Through Dr. Arijit Pasayat and Altamas Kabir JJ, the Supreme Court explained that exercising power under Section 482 of CrPC 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:

1. To give effect to an order under the Code.
2. To prevent abuse of the process of Court.
3. To otherwise secure the ends of justice.

It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all cases that may arise. Therefore, courts have inherent powers apart from express provisions of law that are necessary to discharge functions and duties imposed upon them by law properly. That is the doctrine that finds expression in the section that merely recognizes and preserves the inherent powers of the High Courts. 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 the right and to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice on principle “quando lex a liquid alicui concedit, conceder videtur et id sine quo res ipsae esse non potest” (when the law gives a person anything it shows him that without which it cannot exist). While exercising powers under the section, the Court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section, though comprehensive, has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when the tests justify such exercise specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration, of which courts exist alone. {Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ravi Shanker Srivastava, AIR 2006 SC2872 2006(3)ACR2486(SC)}.

The High Court would not quash the 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 { Balkar Singh v. Jagdish Kumar, 2005 CrLJ 1712 (1715) (SC)}. It is now well settled that the High Court ordinarily would exercise its jurisdiction Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure if the allegations made in the first information report, even if given face value and taken to be correct, do not make out any offence. When the allegations made in the first information report or the evidence collected during the investigation do not satisfy the ingredients of an offence, the superior courts would not encourage the harassment of a person in a criminal court for nothing. { Devendra v. State of U.P, JT 2009 ( 8 ) SC 120 MANU / SC / 0941 / 2009}. In the landmark case of State of Haryana v Bhajan Lal, AIR1992SC604 1992CriLJ527, the Supreme Court laid down broad guidelines for quashing criminal proceedings at the FIR stage, which are mentioned below:

1. The allegations in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or establish a case against the accused.
2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. 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. The uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected supporting the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make a case against the accused.
4. Where the allegations in the F.I.R. 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 that 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 continuance of the proceedings and 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 where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

To determine the integrity of a prayer for quashing raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the following steps were provided by the Supreme Court in Prashant Bharti v. State of NCT of Delhi, AIR 2013 SC 2753 2013(4) AJR 469.

• 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?
• 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 statements 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.
• Step three: Has the material relied upon by the accused not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant, and/or is it such that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant?
• 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?

Suppose the answer to all the steps is affirmative. In that case, the High Court’s judicial conscience should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings by exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Specific to the criminal proceedings in 498A (Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty: Proposed Section 84 of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) case, the Supreme Court clarified the position on non-compoundable offences, which are marital in B.S. Joshi and Ors v State of Haryana, AIR 2003 SC1386 2003 (2) ACR 1305 (SC), as under While exercising inherent power of quashing under Section 482, Cr.P.C. it is for the High Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. Where, in the opinion of the Court, chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may, while taking into consideration the particular facts of a case, also quash the proceedings. The unique features of such matrimonial matters are evident. It becomes the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes.

The object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A (Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty: Proposed Section 84 of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture of a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A (Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty: Proposed Section 84 of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) was added to punish a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper-technical view would be counter-productive and act against women’s interests and the object to which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that the non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XX-A of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, in exercising its inherent powers, the High Court can quash criminal proceedings or F.I.R. or complaint, and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code.

The High Court has all the powers under 482 CrPC to prevent misuse of the court’s process or to secure the ends of Justice.