Section 482 CrPC- Jurisdiction To Quash Can Be Exercised Only If No Offence Is Made Out On Reading The Allegations In FIR As They Stand: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court reiterated that the jurisdiction to quash under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised only if no offence is made out on reading the allegations in the FIR as they stand.

The allegation of the complainant in this case, was that at the time of the marriage, the mother in law and brother in law of her daughter had induced her to hand over stridhan in the nature of silver utensils weighing about 5 kg, gold jewellery weighing about 400 gms, utensils of the value of Rs 1,00,000 and other items.

Allowing the petition filed under Section 482 CrPC by the accused, the Allahabad High Court quashed the FIR observing that there is no specific allegation against the accused and they cannot be said to be either beneficiaries or they have direct link with act of perpetrator of cruelty.

In appeal filed by the complainant, the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Dinesh Maheshwari observed that there are specific allegations in the FIR even as against the accused. 

The order which has been passed by the Single Judge of the High Court, besides being cryptic, has completely failed to notice the allegations in the FIR. While allowing the appeal, the bench observed:

In this backdrop, the finding of the High Court to the effect that there is no specific allegation against the second and third respondents or that, as the mother and sister of the bridegroom, they would not be either beneficiaries or have a direct link with the perpetrators of the crime is not based on cogent material or a reading of the FIR. It is well-settled that at the stage when the High Court considers a petition for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC, the allegations in the FIR must be read as they stand and it is only if on the face of the allegations that no offence, as alleged, has been made out, that the Court may be justified in exercising its jurisdiction to quash. The parameters of the jurisdiction under Section 482 have been reiterated in a consistent line of authorities and, at this stage, it may be material to refer to the recent decision of this Court in Neeharika Infrastructure v. State of Maharashtra in regard to the demand for dowry."

 Case name: Veena Mittal vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Citation 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 110

Case no./date: CrA 122 of 2022 | 24 Jan 2022 |

Coram: Justices DY Chandrachud and Dinesh Maheshwari

Counsel: Adv Jitendra Mohapatra for appellant, Adv D Bharat Kumar for respondent, Adv Stuti Chopra for the State

Click here to Read/Download Order