Legal Juris Criminal Sec. 482 Cr.P.C.

Be circumspect in quashing criminal cases: Supreme Court

“Interfere only to prevent abuse of process of court”

The Supreme Court has asked the High Courts to exercise extreme caution while interfering with investigation of an offence or in quashing criminal proceedings pending in trial courts.
“The High Court should be extremely cautious and slow to interfere with the investigation and/or trial of criminal cases and should not stall the investigation except when it is convinced beyond doubt that the FIR does not disclose commission of any offence or … that it is necessary to interfere to prevent abuse of the process of the court,” said a Bench consisting of Justice S. B. Sinha and Justice G. S. Singhvi.Detrimental
Writing the judgment, Mr. Justice Singhvi said: “In dealing with such cases, the High Court has to bear in mind that judicial intervention on the threshold of the legal process initiated against a person accused of committing an offence is highly detrimental to the larger public and societal interest. The people and society have a legitimate expectation that those committing offences against either an individual or society are expeditiously brought to trial and, if found guilty, adequately punished.”
“While deciding a petition filed for quashing the FIR or complaint or restraining the competent authority from investigating the allegations contained in the FIR or complaint or for stalling the trial, the High Court should be extremely careful and circumspect. If the allegations contained in the FIR or the complaint disclose commission of some crime, then the High Court must keep its hands off and allow the investigating agency to complete the investigation without any fetter and also refrain from passing order which may impede the trial,” said the Bench.No imaginary journey
The High Court should not go into the merits and demerits of the allegations simply because the petitioner alleged “malus animus [evil intention] against the author of the FIR or the complainant”.
“It must also refrain from an imaginary journey in the realm of possible harassment of the petitioner because of the investigation of the FIR or complaint. Such a course would result in miscarriage of justice and encourage those accused of committing crimes to repeat the same,” it added.
In the instant case, Sanapareddy Maheedhar and another person challenged an Andhra Pradesh High Court order rejecting their petition for quashing criminal proceedings against them for dowry offences. Cognisance
It was argued that the magistrate ought not to have taken cognisance of the alleged commission of the offence four years after it occurred, particularly when a U.S. court granted divorce and Maheedhar’s family returned the gift articles to the family of Bhavani Shireesha, wife of Maheedhar. It was also submitted that after the divorce Bhavani remarried.
Agreeing with the appellants’ submissions and setting aside the impugned judgment, the Bench said: “If the High Court is satisfied that the complaint does not disclose commission of any offence or prosecution is barred by limitation or that the proceedings of criminal case would result in failure of justice, then it may exercise the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.PC.” Peculiar facts
In the peculiar facts of this case, continuance of the proceedings before the trial court would amount to abuse of the process of court, the Bench said quashing the proceedings.