The High Court cannot quash an FIR under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. when the trial is nearing completion, as it may compromise the trial's outcome.

ORDER :

(J. C. DOSHI, J.)

1. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “the Code”), the applicants seek quashing of the FIR registered as C.R.No.II-3001 of 2017 registered with Paldi Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 294(b), 506(1) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and further proceedings arising thereof.

2. Learned advocate Mr.Shah for the petitioners submit that dispute which is registered in FIR arise from domestic dispute between Devrani and Jethani. It is further submitted that this Court while issuing notice also recorded that nature of the dispute between the party since is domestic dispute, it is expected that the matter shall be settled. Reading FIR on record, learned advocate Mr.Shah submitted that none of the allegations are matching with ingredient of sections 323, 294(b), 506(1) and 114 of IPC.

2.1. Learned advocate Mr. Shah for the petitioners while reading deposition of witness recorded before the learned Trial Court during trial of FIR, lead this Court to appreciate evidence and acquit the petitioners from the charges levelled against them. Learned advocate for the petitioners referred to judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mamta Shailesh Chandra v/ s. State of Uttarakhand [SLP (Cri.) No.7273 of 2019] and submitted that even if charge-sheet is filed pending quashing petition, the Court can exercise jurisdiction to quash the FIR.

2.2. Upon above submissions, it is submitted to allow the petition and to quash the FIR.

3. Learned APP for the respondent – State would submit that trial is completed in the matter and at present Criminal Case is posted for final hearing. He would submit that in such circumstances, it would not be within scope and ambit of section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR which is on the verge of final judgment. Therefore, he submitted to dismiss the petition.

4. I have heard learned advocates for both the sides and perused the record. This Court by order dated 17.03.2025 called report from learned Trial Court about progress of trial. Report has been forwarded by learned Additional CJM, Ahmedabad and it is submitted that after recording five witnesses in the matter, further statement was recorded on 06.06.2024 and the matter is pending for final arguments. It also indicates that on 02.07.2024, learned advocate for accused sought adjournment and on 20.08.2024, the matter was adjourned in the larger interest of justice as none remain present and thereafter learned Magistrate was on leave. The matter is kept for final hearing on 15.04.2025. This Court is surprised about argument canvassed by learned advocate Mr.Shah to quash the FIR where trial is on verge of completion after recording deposition of witness. I fail to understand how statement in the FIR can be microscopically analyzed at this juncture. Evidence is already led by the prosecution before the learned Trial Court after the petitioners have permitted to frame charge against them and claimed trial. This is absolutely absurd approach on the part of the petitioners. Therefore, without further entering into merits of the case, as it may affect final outcome of trial, this Court finds it fit to dismiss the petition.

5. So far as judgment upon which learned advocate for the petitioners relied, there is no cavil on the ratio laid down therein that even after charge-sheet is filed, correctness of FIR can be examined under section 482 of Cr.P.C. but not entire trial is over and matter is kept for final hearing.

6. In view of above, this Court finds that argument in the matter is nothing but wastage of precious time of the Court. This Court finds it fit to quantify cost upon the petitioners. The cost is quantified at Rs.7500/- to be deposited in Gujarat State Legal Services Authority, Ahmedabad within seven days from today. If the amount of cost is not deposited, Registry is directed to list the matter before this Court.

7. For the reasons stated herein-above, the petit