Plea for Quashing FIR Remains Maintainable Despite Substantial Examination Of Prosecution Witnesses: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that when material prosecution witnesses have been examined, the plea for quashing under Section 482 CrPC will still be maintainable before the High Court.

Justice Sumeet Goel said, "It cannot be said; as a matter of absolute principle; that once substantial/important prosecution witness(s) have been examined, the High Court looses its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 to even consider a plea for quashing of an FIR (as also the proceedings emanating therefrom)."

The Court also summarised the following principles:

I) The powers of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973 are unbridled, unfettered and plenary in nature. The only restriction upon exercise of such powers is self restraint.

II) i) A plea filed for quashing of an FIR (as also the proceedings emanating therefrom) filed before the High Court does not ipso facto become barred or non-maintainable in a case wherein substantial/material prosecution witnesses have already been examined.

ii) In such a scenario, the High Court ought to exercise a high degree of circumspection and caution while dealing with such a plea since it would essentially involve adjudication upon the relevance, veracity & sufficiency of prosecution evidence brought on record during trial proceedings which ordinarily ought to be best left to be considered by the trial Court. Ergo, accentuating facts/circumstances ought to exist for exercise of such power by the High Court.

iii) It is neither conceivable nor desirable to even venture to lay-down any exhaustive set of guideline(s) in this regard, however alluring this aspect may be. Such exercise of inherent powers ought to be best left to the discretion of the Court which is in seisen of the matter, as every case is sui generis in nature.

The quashing petition was filed by a man under Section 482 CrPC, who was accused for committing sexual assault on a minor girl. He was accordingly charged under Section 354-A and 195-A of IPC  and Sections 8 and 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, (Amended), 2012.

According to prosecution, the man sexually assaulted his neighbour who was then studying in class 10th. The statement of the alleged victim supporting the prosecution was case was also recorded.

After hearing the submissions and considering the material on record, the Court noted that the charges were framed against the petitioner in August, 2023 wherein after testimony of the victim was recorded in May, 2023 and the present petition was filed in May, 2024.

"From the material available on record it is clear that the petitioner did not choose to challenge the order framing charges passed on 02.08.2023," it noted.

The Court opined that the submissions advanced by the counsel for the petitioner in support of the quashing petition encompass issues of meticulous analysis of the prosecution evidence especially that of testimony of victim, "that are best left open to be adjudicated in trial."

Justice Goel highlighted that these issues essentially involve a detailed critical appreciation of the evidentiary value and credibility of the testimony of the prime prosecution witness namely the victim. "Engaging in such an analysis at this stage would amount to this Court undertaking a mini-trial, which is not appropriate especially at this juncture."

Moreover, no compelling or accentuating facts have been brought forward that would persuade this Court to hold that continuation of trial proceedings are abuse of process of law or Courts. This is especially at this stage, where the testimony of the key prosecution witness, namely the victim, has already been recorded, added the Court.

In the light of the above, the Court  dismissed the plea for quashing the FIR was dismissed.

Mr. Prabhjot Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

XXXX v. XXXX

2024 LiveLaw (PH) 196