Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ.
Onkar Chandrakant Teli - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra - Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 1315 OF 2024
Decided On : 10-01-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 377, 498-A, 323, 506, and 406 - Quashing of FIR - Petitioners sought to quash FIR No. 0220 of 2023, claiming no offence made out against them - Allegations of false complaint by the Complainant, who is the wife of Petitioner No.1, were discussed - Court noted that the marriage was solemnized on 27th May, 2022, and issues arose over demands for separate residence - The court referred to precedents regarding the quashing of FIRs, emphasizing that the power should be exercised sparingly and only in clear cases of no prima facie offence - The court found that allegations against certain Petitioners were minor and quashed the FIR for them, while dismissing the petition for others. (Paras 4, 19, 20)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent powers of the High Court - The court reiterated that it cannot enter into factual adjudication while considering quashing of FIRs, and must adhere to established legal principles. (Paras 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The Petitioners, including the husband and in-laws of the Complainant, sought to quash an FIR alleging various offences, claiming the allegations were false and exaggerated.
Findings of Court:
The court quashed the FIR against three Petitioners, finding the allegations against them to be minor, while dismissing the petition for the husband and mother-in-law.
Issues: The main issues included whether the allegations constituted a prima facie case and the validity of the FIR against the Petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the FIR could be quashed if the allegations did not constitute any offence, emphasizing the need for clear evidence of wrongdoing.
Result: Writ Petition partly allowed.
JUDGMENT
Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.
1. This matter was heard for quite some time on 9th January, 2025. Petitioner No.2 was present in the Court. We granted an overnight pass-over to enable the learned Advocate for the Petitioners to take instructions.
2. Today, the learned Advocate submits, on instructions from Petitioner No.2, who is present in the Court, that they pray for an order.
3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.
4. The Petitioners comprise of the husband of the Complainant, parents-in-law and the sisters-in-law. They have put forth prayer clause 14 (i) as under:
“i) F.I.R.No. 0220 of 2023 dated 31.03.2023 registered by respondent no.2 may kindly be quashed on the ground that there is no offence made out against the Petitioners”.
5. A First Information Report (FIR) bearing No. 0123 of 2023, was registered on 22nd March, 2023 at 20:58 hours with the N.M.Joshi Marg Police Station, Brihan Mumbai (City). All these Petitioners are arrayed as the Accused in the said FIR. Subsequently, the FIR was transferred to the Samta Nagar Police Station, and was registered on 31st March, 2023 at 00: 23 hours (00:23 am) and renumbered as 0220 of 2023.
6. The learned Advocate for the Petitioners has strenuously canvassed that none of the Petitioners are guilty of having committed any offence. All of them are innocent. A false complaint has been registered by the Complainant/ Informant, who is the wife of Petitioner No.1. She is working as a Junior Processing Officer in a Bank. She has falsely leveled allegations due to which Sections 377, 498-A, 323, 506 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 have been invoked.
7. It is canvassed that the marriage between Petitioner No.1 and the Complainant was solemnized on 27th May, 2022. It is claimed that the Complainant was staying in the marital home and the marriage was not consummated for two months. The Complainant started insisting for a separate residence after three days of the marriage. The parents politely rejected the request. The Complainant has a dominating nature.
8. A Satyanarayan Pooja was performed on 9th June, 2022. The relatives of the Complainant attended the Pooja, had Darshan and had lunch. The Complainant consistently demanded a separate residence and that was the reason for the quarrel. A host of reasons are cited in the pleadings to claim that the FIR contains false and bogus complaints.
9. The Petitioners have relied upon Preeti Gupta and Another Versus State of Jharkhand and Another, (2010) 7 SCC 667 claiming that exaggerated versions are not to be considered. In paragraph 4 of Preeti Gupta and Another (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court noted that the only demand made by the in-laws of the Informant was for a luxury car and no incident of harassment was alleged. There were no other allegations. The Prosecution Witness also did not make any allegations against the Accused.
10. The Petitioners have then relied upon Abhishek Versus State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083. The allegations set out are adverted to in paragraph 6 of the judgment. It is concluded in paragraph 12 as under :
“12. The contours of the power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr. P.C. are well defined. In V. Ravi Kumar v. State represented by Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Salem, Tamil Nadu ((2019) 14 SCC 568], this Court affirmed that where an accused seeks quashing of the FIR, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court, it is wholly impermissible for the High Court to enter into the factual arena to adjudge the correctness of the allegations in the complaint. In Neeharika Infrastructure (P). Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [Criminal Appeal No. 330 of 2021, decided on 13.04.2021], a 3- Judge Bench of this Court elaborately considered the scope and extent of the power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. It was observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases, such stand
The court emphasized that FIRs can be quashed if allegations do not constitute a prima facie case, highlighting the need for clear evidence of wrongdoing.
Vague and omnibus allegations in FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence; however, if allegations disclose prima facie commission of offences, FIR cannot be quashed.
The FIR must make out an offence against a particular accused, and the court should refrain from making observations about the narration of offences to avoid prejudice.
Quashing of Criminal proceedings- Conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having ove....
In domestic violence cases, general and vague allegations are insufficient; specific instances must be provided to avoid misuse of legal provisions.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power to quash an FIR should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases, as per the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court.
The High Court cannot quash an FIR unless the allegations do not constitute an offence; the judiciary must respect the trial process and not supplant it with its judgment on the merits of the case.
The High Court can quash FIRs against individuals named in dowry harassment cases when allegations are general, vague, and lack specificity, preventing abuse of the legal process.
In 498A matrimonial cases, quash proceedings against relatives on vague/general allegations lacking specific roles, especially with FIR delay, to curb family over-implication and process abuse.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
