Quashing of FIR Section 498 A of IPC

A false FIR registered by the wife against the husband and his family can amount to great amounts of harassment and torture if it is registered under section 498 A which is an offence of cruelty. The remedy from this could be the quashing of Section 498 a under Section 482 Crpc. But this relief is granted very sparingly and exercised seldom by the courts. Since an FIR is the “first information report” Is must include all the material facts of the alleged offense. It also must contain all the specific ingredient needed for satisfying an offence and material through which investigation may proceed. if a FIR misses material facts then it is a vague FIR which can be quashed by invoking the jurisdiction of 482 CrPC. under the light of the judgement.

In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab (AIR 1960 SC 866) the apex Court summarized some categories of cases where inherent power can, and should be exercised to quash the proceedings.

1. where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance e.g. want of sanction;

2. where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged;

3. where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. so lack of evidence is another ground for quashing proceedings.

A FIR containing quite vague, general and sweeping, specifying no instances of criminal conduct can be quashed even if the FIR constitutes and satisfy the ingredients of an offence. It is held in Vishalbhai Niranjanbhai Adatiya … vs State Of Gujarat & on 9 December 2015. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive.

At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a matter of serious concern. As Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code states that, “Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.—Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be pun-ished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.—For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means— (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.”

Inherent Powers of High Court The Code of Criminal Procedure has under Section 482 explained the inherent powers of the High Court.

1. Section 482 of the code specifies that a High Court has got the power to act in any manner in order to make the two ends of justice meet.

2. Under this section, a High Court can quash an FIR if it thinks that the FIR which has been lodged is a false one and was done with the sole motive to defame and trouble the aggrieved person. If no specific dates, time and place are mentioned and there are no documentary proof to prove the facts then the allegation will be vague, cryptic and not sufficient. Section 482 doesn’t explicitly provide for what is the inherent power of the court.

This section gives the High Court wide extensive powers to prevent injustices by subordinate courts. The powers under this section are used in exceptional circumstances only. The quashing of criminal proceedings means ceasing the legal machinery which had been set in motion with the registration of First Information Report (FIR). Criminal proceedings can be quashed at any stage once an FIR has been filed but before the charge-sheet-filing stage. However, if circumstances necessitate, even then the court can use its discretionary powers under Section 482. The High Court must use these powers cautiously to serve the ends of justice and prevent the abuse of the process of the court. The apex court had laid down detailed guidelines in this regard in its landmark judgment in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) case- “Apart from narrating the interplay of Section 320 and Section 482 of the Code in the manner aforesaid, the Court also described the extent of power under Section 482 of the Code in quashing the criminal proceedings in those cases where the parties had settled the matter although the offences are not compoundable. In the first instance it was emphasized that the power under Sec. 482 of the Code is not to be resorted to, if there is specific provision in the Code for redressal of the grievance of an aggrieved party. It should be exercised very sparingly and should not be exercised as against the express bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the Code.

The Court also highlighted that in different situations, the inherent power may be exercised in different ways to achieve its ultimate objective. Formation of opinion by the High Court before it exercises inherent power under Section 482 on either of the twin objectives,

(i) to prevent abuse of the process of any court, or

(ii) to secure the ends of justice, is a sine qua non.”

Section 482 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 states that “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.” Invoking this provision not possible in all cases. Only High court has the power to do that, which is used sparingly. The first step in the procedure of 498A is the filing of FIR (First Information Report). The contents of the FIR will constitute the offences of cruelty in the case of 498A. Section 482 crpc has a provision where the FIR can be quashed at the FIR stage. That is even before the charge sheet is filed. If the High Court believes that the case is not fit to be heard in court or that it is an abuse of process of law, then they can invoke Section 482 crpc. Cases in which Section 482 crpc can be invoked- vague allegations like no specifications are mentioned and; offence is not related to the crime

The jurisdiction of the High Court to quash an order of summoning and/or a criminal proceeding as also this Court are well known. The parties have relied upon the decisions of this Court in State of Haryana vs. BhajanLal [1992 (Supp.) 1 SCC 335]. We may notice the categories 1, 3, 5 and 7mentioned in Para 102 of the said decision, which are as under: “(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.

In Devendra & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Anr. [2009 (7) SCALE 613], it has been held: “26. There is no dispute with regard to the aforementioned propositions of law. However, 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 in their entirety, do not make out any offence.

When the allegations made in the First Information Report or the evidences collected during investigation do not satisfy the ingredients of an offence, the superior courts would not encourage harassment of a person in a criminal court for SC Refuses Congress Leader's Plea For Quashing of FIRs In Different States Based On His Tweet Allegedly Hurting Religious Sentiments. The Supreme Court on Friday refused a plea of Haryana Congress leader Pankaj Punia, arrested by Haryana police on May 20 on a FIR for allegedly "hurting religious feelings" through a Twitter post, for quashing other similar ones lodged in Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. On the complaint of one Vivek Lamba, a resident of Karnal, Haryana, the Madhuban Police Station had registered a FIR u/s 153, 295- A, 505(2) of the IPC along with section 67 of the lT Act in respect of Puniya's tweet on the evening of May 19. In his writ petition before the Apex Court, Punia had argued that "there is a growing tendency amongst investigating agencies to file multiple FIRs on the same cause of action", which "allows the state to detain a citizen for prolonged periods, pending an investigation". The Petitioner was arrested on 21.05.2020. The mobile phone through which the tweet was made was recovered by the police. Subsequently, the Petitioner was sent to 14- days judicial custody on 22.05.2020", the plea averred.

In the matter relating to the multiple FIRs filed against Arnab Goswami, the Supreme Court has reserved its order while extending its protection as stated in the order dated 24/04/2020. The judgement is likely to be delivered in the next few days. Harish Salve represented Arnab Goswami while the Congress was represented by Kapil Sibal. Salve argued with aggression and systematic facts at hand which included, playing clips, citing tweets and marking the pattern that demonstrated an all round effort by the Congress party to systematically target and persecute the journalist. The highlight of the hearing was the fact that the Congress has been countered in the top most Court on the multiple mirroring FIRs against Arnab Goswami. Moreover, the attempts to play the sliced and diced clips from Arnab Goswami’s debate were countered live in the apex Court. Harish Salve, who represented Arnab Goswami, played out the excerpts from debates to expose the Congress’ claim that the anchor was trying to create communal disharmony. Kapil Sibal, who represented the Congress, had no comeback to these clips. The Supreme Court raised a serious question as to how ‘all the FIRs are cyclostyled, they are word to word same’. Sibal had no explanation for the mirroring FIRs filed against Goswami and even admitted that if that’s the case, they must be quashed. When an FIR gets lodged, it goes through various logical stages of legal actions from the part of the police to the proceedings before the court. What includes in the middle is the investigation and necessary arrests. The section 482 crpc has a provision which provides that the parties to the case i.e., the complainant and the accused can seek foreclosure of the entire controversy and escape the aforementioned logical steps. The parties, i.e the Complainant and the Accused can settle the dispute between/ amongst them and get the Criminal proceeding arising out of an FIR compounded before the concerned Magistrate.

In some cases, the parties can do it own their own and simply get their statement recorded before the Court. In other, the Parties however, have to seek permission of the court before doing so. Section-320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, titled as “compounding of offences” deals with this issue. The law however, does not permit compounding of the offences, not covered under S-320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. An FIR can be quashed in High court under section 482 crpc.

Usually the grounds for quashing the fir are as follows:

1. Charge sheet is not produced even after 1–2 years of the FIR being registered

2. There is clear proof that the FIR was registered as a counter FIR, meaning that the accused in the present fir has already filed a previous fir as complainant against the same person who has filed the present FIR.

3. There is crystal clear evidence that accused was not present at time of crime in that area or that the accused has the same name as that of the original perpetrator.

4. Other core evidence

5. Accused and complainant want to compromise but offences are non-compoundable and police refuses to do the same.