Quashing Of FIR : Recent Supreme Court Judgments Lay Down Novel Approach

Last week, the Supreme Court pronounced a few judgments making important observations related to the jurisprudence surrounding the quashing of an FIR either under Section 482 (the inherent powers) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or Article 226 (extraordinary jurisdiction) of the Indian Constitution.

The judgments were delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and J.B. Pardiwala, who heard these matters. The judgments were authored by Justice Pardiwala.

The criminal antecedents of the accused cannot be the sole consideration for declining to quash the criminal proceedings.

The Apex Court, in its decision of Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 624, observed that when it comes to quashing an FIR or criminal proceedings, criminal antecedents of an accused cannot be of sole consideration in declining to quash the criminal proceedings.

In this case, an FIR was lodged against the accused persons, alleging offences punishable under Sections 395, 504, 506, and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). They approached the Apex Court as the Allahabad High Court declined to quash the FIR.

One of the issues before the Supreme Court was whether the case in hand falls within any of the parameters laid down by this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 to quash the criminal case.

While deciding on the above issue, the Court delved into a submission made by the Additional Advocate General (AAG), who appeared for the State. She argued against quashing the FIR, considering gross criminal antecedents of the accused persons. However, the Court held:

“A bare look at the chart may give an impression that the appellants are history sheeters and hardened criminals. However, when it comes to quashing of the FIR or criminal proceedings, the criminal antecedents of the accused cannot be the sole consideration to decline to quash the criminal proceedings. An accused has a legitimate right to say before the Court that howsoever bad his antecedents may be, still if the FIR fails to disclose commission of any offence or his case falls within one of the parameters as laid down by this Court in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra), then the Court should not decline to quash the criminal case only on the ground that the accused is a history sheeter.”

When Accused Seeks to Quash FIR On Ground That It's Based On Personal Vengeance, Attendant Circumstances Must Be Looked Into

Further, in Salib @ Shalu @ Salim v. State of U P, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 618, the Court observed that in cases where the quashing of an FIR is sought, essentially on the ground that the proceedings are based on ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, “then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely.”

The Court elucidated:

“We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings.”

“The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence.”

Pursuant to this, the Apex Court also made several other imperative observations about the intricacies of quashing FIRs. They are:

1. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the case record over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection, try to read in between the lines.

2. The Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/ registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of an investigation.

In Mohammad Wajid too, similar observations were made, as follows :

"Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence.

Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation"

High Court Can Try to Read Between the Lines While Considering Plea to Quash FIR

In a similar case, the Apex Court noted that “multiple FIRs had been registered over a period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged.”

In this case, an FIR  was lodged against an accused, alleging the commission of offences under several Sections of the IPC. The High Court dismissed the petition seeking quashing of the FIR. In appeal, the Apex Court said that even if the entire case of the prosecution is believed or accepted to be true, none of the ingredients to constitute the offence as alleged are disclosed. (Mahmood Ali v. State of UP, 2023 INSC 684).

Against this backdrop, the Court reiterated the principle mentioned above. It recorded:

“In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection, try to read in between the lines.”

In the end, it is worth mentioning the case of Iqbal @ Bala & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2023 INSC 685, which is linked with Salib @ Shalu (mentioned above). In this case, even though the Court refused to quash the FIR since the charge sheet was ready to be filed before the competent Court, it observed “allegations levelled in the FIR do not inspire any confidence more particularly in the absence of any specific date, time, etc. of the alleged offences.”

Further, the Court reiterated the observations made in Salib @ Shalu. It recorded:

“Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely.”