Correctness Of Allegations In FIR To Be Tested During Trial; Not By High Court While Exercising Jurisdiction U/S 482 CrPC: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court recently reiterated the view that the High Court, while exercising its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings, would have to proceed entirely on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint or the documents accompanying the same per se.The Single Judge Bench of Justice K. Babu relied upon a catena of Apex Court decisions such as State of...
The Kerala High Court recently reiterated the view that the High Court, while exercising its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings, would have to proceed entirely on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint or the documents accompanying the same per se.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice K. Babu relied upon a catena of Apex Court decisions such as State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha (1982), State of Kerala v. O.C. Kuttan (1999), M/S Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2021), and Minakshi Bala v. Sudhir Kumar & Ors., to observe that, the High Court has no jurisdiction to examine the correctness or otherwise of the allegations raised in such documents.
The 1st petitioner in the case is the husband of the 2nd respondent, while the other two petitioners are her mother-in-law and father-in-law respectively. It is seen that subsequent to the marriage of the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent as per Christian customs and rites, the parties resided together in their matrimonial home at Bombay. It is alleged that the petitioners harassed the 2nd respondent to meet their unlawful demand for property. She was also physically and mentally ill-treated, and her assets were misappropriated by the respondents.
An FIR was thus registered against the petitioners, and the Final Report alleging the commission of offence under Section 498-A r/w Section 34 of I.P.C was submitted. The Jurisdictional Magistrate took cognizance and issued process to the petitioners who appeared before the Court, and the Trial Court framed charge under the aforementioned provisions against the petitioners.
It was contended by Advocates Abdul Jaeel A. and M.A. Sulfia that the F.I.R and other materials before the Trial Court did not reveal the offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C, and the FIR was thus liable to be quashed. The Public Prosecutor on the other hand, argued that the F.I.R revealed the ingredients required to constitute an offence under Section 498-A IPC. The counsels for the respondents also relied upon the decision in Minakshi Bala v. Sudhir Kumar & Ors. (1994), wherein it had been laid down that only in rarest of rare cases could the Court exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings in a case, where the Trial Court had already framed charge against the petitioners/accused under Sections 239 and 240 Cr.P.C.
Relying upon a plethora of Apex Court decisions as regards the power vested upon the High Court under Section 482Cr.P.C., the Court observed,
"...It is trite that the power of quashing criminal proceedings should be exercised with circumspection and that too, in the rarest of rare cases and it was not justified for this Court in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the Final report or the complaint. A finding on the veracity of a material relied on by the prosecution in a case where the allegations levelled by the prosecution disclose a cognizable offence, is not a consideration for the High Court while exercising its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C".
The Court also took note of the observation in Minakshi Bala case (supra), that "once charges are framed under Section 240 CrPC the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction would not be justified in relying upon documents other than those referred to in Section 239 and 240 CrPC; nor would it be justified in invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the same except in those rare cases where forensic exigencies and formidable compulsions justify such a course". In the said case, the Court had added that even in such exceptional cases the High Court could only look into those documents that were unimpeachable and could be legally translated into relevant evidence.
On the basis of the same, the Court concluded that,
"In the present case, the material placed before the Court reveal allegations to attract the offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C. The correctness or otherwise of the allegations levelled in Annexure A1 F.I.R and the Final Report is a matter to be tested during the course of the trial," while dismissing the petition.
The Court dispensed with the personal appearance of the parties, on the submission made by the counsels for the petitioners in this regard. It further directed the Court below to invoke Rule 8(23) of the Electronic Video Linkage Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021 for the examination of one of the witnesses in the case, and posted the Calendar Case to June 7, 2023.
"The trial Court shall dispose of the Calendar Case within three months from the date of production of a copy of this order. It is made clear that the learned Magistrate is at liberty to seek further time, if required," the Court further added.
Advocates N. R. Sangeetha Raj, Jacob P. Alex, Joseph P. Alex, Manu Sankar P., and Amal Amir Ali appeared on behalf of the respondents.
Case Title: XXX & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 200