Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Ker) 445

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
Vignesh Kumar Balasundar, S/O.Balasundar – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Kerala – Respondents
Crl.MC No. 2344 of 2024
Decided on : 22-05-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : N.L.BITTO, MITHUL T ANTO
For the Respondent: SRI.RENJIT GEORGE

IMPORTANT POINT
The power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 should be exercised sparingly, carefully, and with caution, and only when justified by the tests laid down in the section itself. Quashing the FIR and dropping the investigation is not legally permissible when the FIR discloses the commission of a cognizable offence.

Headnote:
Section 482 - Quashing of FIR under Section 498A r/w Section 34 of the IPC - [Section 482] - [Section 498A, Section 34, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973] - The court discussed the principles of quashing FIR under Section 482 and cited various judgments to illustrate the circumstances where quashment of FIR is permissible. The court emphasized that the power under Section 482 should be exercised sparingly, carefully, and with caution, and only when justified by the tests laid down in the section itself. It also highlighted that when the FIR discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, quashing the FIR and dropping the investigation is not legally permissible.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a case to quash the FIR in Crime No.761/2023 of Medical College Police Station, alleging the commission of an offence under Section 498A r/w Section 34 of the IPC. The petitioner argued that the complaint and the FIR did not disclose essentials to constitute the offence. The Public Prosecutor contended that the complaint prima facie disclosed materials warranting investigation for the offence based on the FIR.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the Criminal Miscellaneous Case, stating that the complaint prima facie disclosed the essentials to register a crime alleging the commission of an offence under Section 498A r/w Section 34 of the IPC by the accused. The court emphasized that quashing the FIR at the very inception could not be justified and granted the petitioner liberty to defend the case in accordance with the law.
Issues: The main issue was whether the FIR should be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, based on the allegations of the petitioner and the contentions of the Public Prosecutor.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the power under Section 482 should be exercised sparingly, carefully, and with caution, and only when justified by the tests laid down in the section itself. It also highlighted that when the FIR discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, quashing the FIR and dropping the investigation is not legally permissible.
Final Decision: The Criminal Miscellaneous Case was dismissed, and the petitioner was granted liberty to defend the case in accordance with the law.

ORDER :

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash Annexure 1 FIR in Crime No.761/2023 of Medical College Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 498A r/w Section 34 of the IPC.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, a private complaint filed before the Magistrate Court, was forwarded to the police, whereby, FIR in Crime No.761/2023 was registered. But the complaint and the FIR do not disclose essentials to constitute an offence punishable under Section 498A r/w Section 34 of the IPC. Therefore, the FIR is liable to be quashed.

4. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that, the contents in the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent herein, prima facie, discloses materials warranting investigation for the offence on the basis of FIR registered. Therefore, quashment of FIR cannot be considered and the same deserves dismissal.

5. Adverting to the essentials to quash FIR, the Hon’ble Apex Court in [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : (AIR 1992 SC 604)] (State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others) held as under:

"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Art.226 or the inherent powers under S.482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

(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;

(2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under S.156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of S.155(2) of the Code;

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under S.155(2) of the Code;

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

6. In the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Suresh Kumar Goyal and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reporte