Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently emphasised that petitions filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to quash a chargesheet can be validly entertained even before the formal framing of charges. Court clarified that such petitions should not be dismissed solely on the basis that the accused has the option to present legal and factual defenses during the trial.

A bench of Justices C T Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol pointed out that to prevent abuse of process of court, the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482, CrPC can quash the proceedings but only when the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. 

The court allowed a criminal appeal filed by one Raghul Dinesh, his mother, and maternal uncle against the Madras High Court's May 29, 2020 order declining to quash the proceedings initiated against them on a complaint filed by his wife alleging an offence of dowry harassment under Section 498 A of the IPC.

The bench found the case to be eminently fit to be quashed in view of the absolute absence of specific allegations.

In the case, a charge sheet was filed on August 2, 2019, before the Judicial Magistrate-1, Pollachi, District Coimbatore.

Holding that prima facie, materials were there to frame charges against the appellants, the High Court had declined to exercise the power under Section 482 of the CrPC. 

After hearing the counsel for the parties, the Supreme Court examined if the final report carrying the accusation was worthy to form basis for making the petitioners stand the trial or in other words, whether the disinclination of the High Court to quash the FIR, charge sheet and all further proceedings was sustainable or not. 

"A scanning of the final report would reveal the vagueness in the accusation and allowing proceedings based on it to continue would be an abuse of process of the court. There is absolute absence of specific allegations with necessary details against the appellants and the allegations are general and too vague," the bench said.

The bench cited Umesh Kumar Vs State of Andhra Pradesh (2013), wherein the top court held that a petition under Section 482, CrPC could be filed for quashing the final report filed under Section 173(2), CrPC, even before framing of charges by the court.

"In the said circumstances, the reasoning of the High Court cannot be sustained. In other words, in view of the nature of the FIR and the final report, the High Court ought to have considered the merits of the contentions raised to support the prayer for quashing the final report (the chargesheet) and all further proceedings pursuant thereto," the bench said.

The court also relied upon the decision in Dhanlakshmi Vs R Prasanna Kumar (1990) in which it was held that to prevent abuse of process of court, the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482, CrPC could quash the proceedings but there would be justification for interference only when the complaint did not disclose any offence or was frivolous, vexations or oppressive. 

The bench said this exposition has been followed scrupulously by the top court.

Therefore, the bench said, "We feel that this is eminently fit case where the High Court ought to have exercised the power under Section 482 of the CrPC to terminate the proceedings in the interest of justice".

The court finally set aside the High Court's order and quashed further proceedings in the matter.

Case Title: Raghul Dinesh & Ors Vs The Sub Inspector of Police & Anr