In a recent verdict on December 14, the Supreme Court, in response to an appeal seeking the quashing of an FIR, emphasized that High Courts, while wielding authority under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), are legally obligated to assess whether accusations constitute an offense.
The case involved a complainant (second respondent) and the appellant entangled in a dispute over their minor daughter. The appellant, already pursuing a divorce petition and a Guardians & Wards Act application, faced an FIR on 04.09.2016, leading to charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The complainant alleged that on 12.06.2016, the appellant, along with his parents and relatives, orchestrated the disappearance of their daughter, assaulted her, and forcibly expelled her from the residence after seizing her valuables.
Seeking relief, the accused approached the Allahabad High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the FIR, but their plea was dismissed, prompting the present appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Apex Court scrutinized the allegations, focusing on the charges under Section 323 of the IPC. It observed that aside from the complainant’s claim of physical assault, no supporting evidence was presented. The Court pointed out the absence of any indication that the complainant sought medical treatment after the incident, leading to the conclusion that the essential elements for constituting an offense under Section 323 were lacking.
Examining the charges under Section 384 of the IPC, the Court identified two crucial elements – intentionally inducing fear of injury and dishonestly obtaining property. The chargesheet, however, failed to substantiate these allegations, resulting in the Court dismissing the prima facie case under Section 384.
Similarly, the Court reiterated the necessary elements for Section 406 IPC, emphasizing the absence of entrustment of property and dishonest usage or disposal, thus deeming the provision inapplicable.
Highlighting that the FIR was registered subsequent to the appellant’s application under the Guardians & Wards Act, the Court criticized the High Court for not utilizing its powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings.
Concluding its observations, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellant, asserting that the High Court had erred in not exercising its powers under Section 482 CrPC. The verdict emphasized the inadequacy of the chargesheet to establish a prima facie case for the offenses alleged.
Loading...
Reload document 
Open in new tab 
