High Courts While Exercising S.482 CrPC Power Legally Bound To See If Accusations Constitute Any Offence : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court (on December 14), while allowing an appeal seeking quashing of an FIR, opined that while exercising power under Section 482, CrPC, the High Court was legally bound to see if accusations constitute any offence or not.

To provide a brief background, the complainant (second respondent) and appellant had a minor daughter. The appellant had already filed a petition for the dissolution of his marriage with the complainant and also an application (in 16.05.2016) under the Guardians & Wards Act of 1890. The appellant filed the application to declare him as the guardian of their minor daughter.

On 04.09.2016, an FIR was registered against the appellant, his parents, and relatives. Following this, a chargesheet was filed under Sections 323 (Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), 384 (Punishment for extortion), and 406 (Punishment for criminal breach of trust) of the IPC. Pertinently, in the written complaint, the complainant had alleged that on 12.06.2016, the appellant, his parents, and relatives had caused the disappearance of the daugher and, when asked about the daughter, they assaulted her, threw her out of the flat after snatching her jewellery and cash.

Aggrieved by this, the accused persons approached the Allahabad High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking quashing of the FIR. However, the same got dismissed. Against this backdrop, the present appeal was filed by the appellant. 

Supreme Court's Observations

Regarding offence under Section 323, IPC, the Apex Court observed that besides statement wherein complainant has alleged that she was beaten up, no other material was placed on record.

“As relates the alleged commission of offence under Section 323, IPC besides the bald statement of the second respondent complainant 'when I asked those people about my daughter, they beat up me' no other material whatsoever is on record. In short, there is no material on record to support the alleged causation of hurt.,” the Court said. 

Adding to this observation, the Court also noted that there is not even a whisper that the complainant, after the incident, underwent any treatment. Based on this, the Court concluded that the basic ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 323, IPC, are not present in the charge sheet.

Moving forward, the Court perused the relevant documents to ascertain whether the ingredients of other offences were being satisfied.

With respect to Section 384, IPC, the Court observed that there are two ingredients that need to be satisfied. A. Intentionally putting a person in fear of injury to himself or another; B. Dishonestly inducing the person so put to deliver to any person any property or valuable security.

The Court observed that the chargesheet lacks such accusations, thus prima facie case under Section 384 cannot be made out.

Likewise, the Court reiterated the essential ingredients to attract Section 406 of the IPC. It held that in the absence of basic ingredient of entrustment of property and dishonest usage or disposal of any such property, this provision was not constituted.

It may also be noted that apart from these observations, the Top Court also pointed out that the FIR got registered after the filing of an aforesaid application under the Guardians & Wards Act by the appellant.

Before parting, the Court also observed that the High Court had erred in not invoking the powers under Section 482, CrPC, to quash the proceedings.

"As the High Court did not endeavour to consider whether the chargesheet submitted showed prima facie case under Sections 323, 384 and 406, IPC for voluntarily causing hurt, for extortion and for criminal breach of trust, we think it inevitable to undertake such a consideration as in the facts and circumstances while called upon to exercise the power under Section 482, CrPC the High Court was legally bound to see if allegations/accusations constitute any offence or not"

“In the circumstances obtained as above, we are of the considered view that no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing criminal prosecution against the appellant to continue based on the aforesaid chargesheet as ingredients of all the aforementioned offences are wanting in this case. We have no hesitation to hold that the High Court has clearly fallen in error in not invoking the powers under Section 482, CrPC to quash the proceedings qua the appellant.”

Based on this projection, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal.

Case Title: ABHISHEK SAXENA vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH., Diary No.- 1996 - 2020

Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1072

Click here to read the judgment