Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 915

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPANKAR DATTA, UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.
Shaileshbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel - Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat - Respondent
Crl. A. Nos.1884-1885 of 2013
Decided On : 28-08-2024

Advocates appeared:
For Appellant(s) Mr. Nikhil Goel, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Ghade, AOR Ms. Naveen Goel, Adv. Ms. Siddhi Gupta, Adv. Mr. Adithya K. Roy, Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR Ms. Devyani Bhatt, Adv. Ms. Neha Singh, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed the High Court's authority to quash FIRs under Section 482 of the CrPC, even post charge-sheet, based on the nature of allegations and circumstances.

Headnote:
Quashing - FIR - IPC Section 498-A, CrPC Sections 154, 173(2) - The court emphasized the power under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash FIRs even after a charge-sheet is filed, focusing on the nature of allegations and the circumstances of the case.
Fact of the Case:
The High Court dismissed applications to quash an FIR under Section 498-A IPC, leading to appeals by the complainant's family. The complainant had divorced and remarried, showing no interest in the proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the FIR's allegations were vague and that the complainant's lack of participation indicated no desire to pursue the matter, warranting quashing of the FIR and charge-sheet.
Issues: Whether the FIR and charge-sheet should proceed for trial despite the complainant's changed circumstances and lack of opposition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that the High Court can quash an FIR even after a charge-sheet is filed if it finds that the allegations do not disclose an offense or if proceeding would abuse the legal process.
Result: The appeals were allowed, quashing the FIR and charge-sheet.

ORDER :

1. By a common impugned judgment and order dated 14th September, 2011, a learned Judge of the High Court of Gujarat dismissed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.5245 of 2003 (Shaileshbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.) and Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 14383 of 2005 (Shainan Shaileshbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat & Anr.).

2. Criminal Appeal No.1884/2013 and Criminal Appeal No.1885 of 2013, by special leave, are at the instance of the complainant’s parents-in-law and husband, respectively, questioning such judgment and order whereby the learned Judge refused to quash FIR No.I-405/2022 dated 21st December, 2002 (FIR) under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at J.P. Road Police Station, Vadodara, Gujarat and consequently dismissed the petitions of the appellants under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(Cr. PC)

3. A bare reading of the impugned judgment and order reveals what primarily weighed with the learned Judge to refuse the prayer for quashing. The officer entrusted to investigate the FIR upon collection of materials had filed a charge-sheet under Section 173(2) of the Cr. PC. This led the learned Judge to hold that a prima facie case having been made out against the appellants, the FIR was not required to be quashed and set aside in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Cr. PC.

4. It is not in dispute that after the FIR was registered in 2002, the complainant [respondent no.3 in Criminal Appeal No.1884/2013 and respondent no.2 in Criminal Appeal No.1885/2013] and the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1885/2013 obtained divorce by mutual consent; further that, the complainant has since re-married and blessed with children from her second marriage; and also that, despite service of notice on her on 30th May, 2023, as appears from the office report dated 02nd December, 2023, the complainant has not entered appearance to oppose these appeals.

5. We have heard Mr. Nikhil Goel, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants in both the appeals and Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, learned standing counsel representing the State of Gujarat, at some length and perused the papers on record.

6. It is important to bear in mind the facts and circumstances giving rise to the present appeals. The complainant and the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1885/2013 have since severed their marital ties in 2004, the complainant is in her family way upon such severance of tie with the said appellant and both the complainant and the said appellant are presently based out of India, well settled in their respective lives. That the complainant has no inclination to have her marital life disturbed is also evident from her non-participation in the present proceedings. That apart, the allegations leveled in the FIR are mostly vague and general in nature. In such a factual background, we are called upon to examine whether the FIR and the charge-sheet under Sections 154 and 173(2), Cr. PC, respectively, ought to proceed for trial and be not quashed merely because of appearance of a prima facie case against the appellants.

7. The question of law involved in these two appeals as to whether quashing of the FIR should have been refused for no other reason than that the investigating officer has filed the charge-sheet is no longer res integra. Decisions of this Court to such effect are legion. We may profitably refer to the decisions of this Court in Ruchi Majoo v. Sanjeev Majoo (2011) 6 SCC 479, Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Home Department (2019) 11 SCC 706 and Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083.

8. On the authority of the aforesaid decisions, law seems to be well-settled that the High Court under Section 482, Cr. PC. retains the power to quash an FIR, even after charge-sheet under Section 173(2) thereof is filed, provided a satisfaction is reached, inter alia, that either the FIR and the charge-sheet read together, even accepted as true and c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document