Read Time: 10 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently observed that a plea for quashing the FIR and criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code or Article 226 of the Constitution can be filed at any stage of the proceedings on the ground of abuse of process of law and any other available ground.

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih also emphasised that while considering the prayer for discharge, the trial court cannot consider any document which is not part of the charge sheet.

The court was considering a petition by one Rajnish Kumar Biswakarma against the Delhi High Court's order, which dismissed his petition filed for quashing an FIR lodged under Sections 498A and 34 of the IPC.

As per the facts of the case, prior to the registration of the FIR on May 8, 2019, the appellant-husband filed a petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking a declaration of nullity of his marriage with the second respondent.

A writ petition was filed earlier by him for quashing the FIR. In November 2020, the said petition was withdrawn. Thereafter, on June 23, 2021, a decree of nullity was passed by the Family Court. The writ petition for quashing was filed later.

By its order, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, noting that the decree of nullity, which was an ex-parte decree, had been challenged by the second respondent, his wife. The High Court directed that the decree of nullity, as well as the appeal preferred by the second respondent, should be placed before the Trial Court.

The High Court further stated that the Trial Court shall take into account those documents while hearing the arguments on the charges.

Among the various grounds urged in the writ petition in support of the prayer for quashing the FIR was that the act of filing the FIR after the appellant filed a petition seeking a declaration regarding the nullity of marriage was an abuse of process of law.

The Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the State, submitted that the contentions raised by the appellant can always be considered by the Trial Court while framing the charges.

He also submitted that a challenge to the FIR must be made at the inception.

After hearing the counsel for the second respondent, wife, the bench said, "To say the least, the High Court has committed a gross error by directing the Trial Court to consider the decree of nullity and appeal preferred by the second respondent at the time of framing of charge."

The bench pointed out, that in the case of State of Orissa Vs Debendra Nath Padhi (2005), the top court has reiterated the well-settled law that while considering the prayer for discharge, the Trial Court cannot consider any document which is not part of the charge sheet.

"Contrary to the law laid down by this Court, the High Court has directed the Trial Court to consider the documents which are not part of the charge sheet at the time of framing of charge. Thus, the directions given by the High Court are completely illegal," the bench said.

Having noted that the High Court had not even gone into the merits of the challenge to the FIR under Section 482 of the CrPC, the bench said, "Therefore, we are constrained to observe that the order of the High Court is completely illegal."

The court also rejected the argument by the ASG that a prayer for quashing the FIR can be made before the High Court at the earliest.

"At any stage of the proceedings, an accused can adopt remedies either under 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the First Information Report and proceedings started thereupon on the ground of abuse of process of law and any other available ground. Whether the challenge can be entertained or not is a matter of discretion for the High Court. However, we cannot countenance an argument that prayer for quashing FIR must be rejected only on the ground that the same has not been challenged at the inception," the bench said.

The court set aside the impugned order of November 7, 2023, and restored the writ petition to the file of the Delhi High Court and directed that it be fixed before the roster bench on December 17, when the parties would appear.

The High Court would then fix the date of hearing, and the interim order would continue till the disposal of the matter, the court said, leaving all questions open for a decision by the High Court.

Case Title: Rajnish Kumar Biswakarma Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr