Read Time: 07 minutes
Court noted that following the FIR in 2002, the woman involved had mutually agreed to a divorce, remarried, and had children from her second marriage
The Supreme Court recently quashed criminal proceedings against a man and his parents in a dowry harassment case after noting that the allegations were mostly vague and general in nature and the man and alleged victim had severed their marital ties in 2004. It also stressed that mere filing of the charge sheet was no ground to continue with the case.
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan allowed the appeals filed by one Shaileshbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel and others against the Gujarat High Court's 2005 judgment which dismissed their applications filed under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the FIR registered on December 21, 2002.
Since the complainant was unrepresented despite service, court said that perhaps she was not interested in being disturbed after having remarried and settled abroad. The court deemed it appropriate to use its power under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice for quashing the FIR, the charge-sheet and all other proceedings.
The high court in the case had opined since the officer entrusted to investigate the FIR upon collection of materials had filed a charge-sheet under Section 173(2) of the CrPC, hence a prima facie case having been made out against the appellants, the FIR was not required to be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the CrPC.
The top court noted it was not in dispute that after the FIR was registered in 2002 and the complainant had obtained divorce by mutual consent, she got remarried and was blessed with children from her second marriage.
Despite service, she has not entered an appearance to oppose the appeals, court noted.
The bench said it was important to bear in mind the facts and circumstances giving rise to the present appeals.
"The complainant and the appellant (husband) 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," the bench said.
In such a factual background, the apex court was called upon to examine whether the FIR and the charge-sheet under Sections 154 and 173(2), CrPC, respectively, ought to proceed for trial and be not quashed merely because of appearance of a prima facie case against the appellants.
The bench pointed out the question of law involved in the appeal as to whether quashing of the FIR should have been refused for no other reason than that the investigating officer had filed the charge sheet was no longer res integra.
Court relied upon decisions in Ruchi Majoo Vs Sanjeev Majoo (2011), Anand Kumar Mohatta Vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Home Department (2019) and Abhishek Vs State of Madhya Pradesh (2019).
"On the authority of these decisions, law seems to be well-settled that the High Court under Section 482, CrPC 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 correct without rebuttal, does not disclose commission of any offence or that continuation of proceedings arising out of such an FIR would in fact be an abuse of the process of law as well as of the court given the peculiar circumstances of each particular case," the bench said.
Going by facts and in the circumstances of the present case, the bench said it was appropriate to give a quietus to the long-standing dispute between the private parties.
Case Title: Shaileshbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel & Anr Vs State of Gujarat & Ors
Please Login or Register
