Decided : 15 November, 2018

Reported :  15 November, 2018

CrPC Section 482  - Whether once the charge sheet is filed, petition for quashing of FIR is untenable?  -

There is nothing in the words of Section 482 which restricts the exercise of the power of the Court to prevent the abuse of process of court or miscarriage of justice only to the stage of the FIR - It is settled principle of law that the High court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C even when the discharge application is pending with the trial court - Indeed, it would be a travesty to hold that proceedings initiated against a person can be interfered with at the stage of FIR but not if it has advanced, and the allegations have materialized into a charge sheet - On the contrary it could be said that the abuse of process caused by FIR stands aggravated if the FIR has taken the form of a charge sheet after investigation - The power is undoubtedly conferred to prevent abuse of process of power of any court.

(2018)2 SCeJ 1719



CrPC Section 482, 406  - Allegation that the Appellant has fraudulently transferred the property which is the subject matter of the developer agreement to his wife and has thereby committed criminal breach of trust - This charge is wholly untenable and rather extraordinary since the alleged fraudulent transfer of property by the Appellant to his wife, assuming it to be illegal, by no stretch of imagination can constitute the offence of a criminal breach of trust, since the property was not entrusted by the complainant to the Appellants - The property belonged to Appellant and there was therefore no question of Appellants having been entrusted with their own property, and that too by the complainant, who had merely entered into a development agreement in respect of the property.

(2018)2 SCeJ 1719

Criminal Procedure Code, Section 482 - Revisional jurisdiction of the High Court  - High Court has not at all assigned any  cogent reason  for reaching its conclusion - We are conscious of the fact that revisional jurisdiction must be exercised by the High Court only  in exceptional circumstances, where there is a gross miscarriage  of justice, manifest illegality or perversity in the judgment of the lower court - Interference would be warranted only if there is a manifest illegality in the judgment of the lower court - But in the matter on hand, in our considered opinion, because of non­furnishing of valid reasons by the Trial Court, while coming to its conclusion, there is manifest illegality, and thus, the view taken  by the High Court cannot be termed as reasonable - When there is a glaring defect or manifest error leading to a flagrant miscarriage of justice, this Court cannot shut its eyes  merely  on  technicalities, particularly while exercising jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution - In our considered opinion, the revisional jurisdiction vested in the High Court has not been properly exercised by the High Court - The High Court should not have proceeded casually while affirming the judgment of the trial Court - Having regard to the material on  record  and  having regard to the magnitude of the offence, the High Court should have been more serious while considering the revision petition.(2018)2 SCeJournal 1390

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 S. 482 - Court is of the view that notwithstanding the fact the offence under Section 498A IPC is a non-compoundable offence, there should be no impediment in quashing the FIR under this section, if the Court is otherwise satisfied that the facts and circumstances of the case so Warrant - Indian Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860) S. 498-A. (183) PLR (Del.)

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 S. 482 - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881) S. 138 - Whether the cheques were given as security or not, or whether there was outstanding liability or not is a question of fact which could have been determined only by the trial court after recording evidence of the parties - High Court not have expressed its view on the disputed question of fact - As to whether the signatory of demand notice was authorized by the complainant company or not, could not have been examined by the High Court in its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when such plea was controverted by the complainant before it - High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by giving its opinion on disputed questions of fact, before the trial Court. (S.C.)(179) PLR

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 S. 482 - Since  matter of this FIR is essentially matrimonial, which now stands mutually and amicably settled between the parties, therefore, continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility and is a fit case for this Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction and quash the same. (183) PLR (Del.)

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 S. 482 - Where the High Court is convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and therefore do not affect public peace or tranquillity and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them. (183) PLR (Del.)

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 S. 482, 156(3) - Where the police does not register FIR - It is  inter alia provided that a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be entertained for registering a FIR and the petitioner should be relegated to the Magistrate, who has power to register FIR under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. or direct the police to register FIR - In view of the above, the petitioners may, if so advised, avail other remedies in accordance with law.  (183) PLR

Criminal Procedure Code, 1974 S. 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860) S. 376, 120-B, Petitioners - Real question would be that if a female, who is 27 years old at the time of registration of FIR, was having an affair with VS for about 2-1/2 years, whether his family members could be held responsible in any way on the basis of story propounded in the FIR and revealed during investigation - Petitioner No.1 is the married sister of VS - Allegations so far as petitioners are concerned would pale into insignificance when child was born to the complainant after about 1 year and 4 months after registration of FIR - There is no assertion in the FIR or challan report that parents or the married sister of VS had any role to play when VS and the complainant started having an affair about 2-1/2 years before registration of FIR - Petitioners cannot be at all prosecuted for offence under Section 376 of the Code as their role was introduced while settling the issue of marriage between the complainant and   (180) PLR


Criminal Procedure Code, 1974 S. 482, 320 - High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can quash the criminal proceedings in matrimonial disputes in non-compoundable offences and Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not limit such power - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955). (178) PLR