In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India reaffirmed that a High Court has the authority to quash an FIR even after a charge-sheet has been filed if it finds that the continuation of proceedings would constitute an abuse of the process of law. The ruling came in the case of Shaileshbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel & Anr. vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., Criminal Appeal Nos. 1884 and 1885 of 2013, decided by a bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.
Background of the Case
The appeals arose from a judgment of the Gujarat High Court, which had dismissed the petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) by the appellants, Shaileshbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel and another, seeking to quash FIR No. I-405/2002 registered at J.P. Road Police Station, Vadodara, Gujarat. The FIR had been lodged under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, pertaining to allegations of cruelty against a married woman.
The appellants, who are the husband and parents-in-law of the complainant, challenged the High Court’s refusal to quash the FIR and the subsequent charge-sheet filed by the investigating officer under Section 173(2) of the CrPC.
Key Legal Issues Involved
The primary legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court could quash an FIR and charge-sheet even after a prima facie case had been established by the investigating officer. The appellants argued that the FIR and subsequent legal proceedings were an abuse of the judicial process, given that the complainant had since divorced the appellant (husband) by mutual consent, remarried, and appeared disinclined to pursue the case further.
The case also brought into focus the scope of Section 482 of the CrPC, which grants the High Court inherent powers to make such orders as may be necessary to prevent the abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
Court’s Observations and Decision
The Supreme Court bench, after hearing senior counsel Mr. Nikhil Goel for the appellants and Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, standing counsel for the State of Gujarat, highlighted several factors that contributed to its decision. The Court noted that the complainant and her former husband had severed marital ties as early as 2004 and were now settled in their respective lives abroad, with no inclination to revisit the past.
The bench observed:
“The allegations leveled in the FIR are mostly vague and general in nature. In such a factual background, we are called upon to examine whether the FIR and the charge-sheet under Sections 154 and 173(2), Cr. PC, respectively, ought to proceed for trial and be not quashed merely because of appearance of a prima facie case against the appellants.”
Citing past judgments in cases like Ruchi Majoo vs. Sanjeev Majoo [(2011) 6 SCC 479], Anand Kumar Mohatta vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Home Department [(2019) 11 SCC 706], and Abhishek vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083], the Court reiterated that the High Court under Section 482 CrPC retains the power to quash an FIR, even after a charge-sheet is filed, provided that it is satisfied that the continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of the legal process.
“On the authority of the aforesaid decisions, law seems to be well-settled that the High Court under Section 482, CrPC, retains the power to quash an FIR, even after charge-sheet under Section 173(2) thereof is filed, provided a satisfaction is reached… that continuation of proceedings arising out of such an FIR would in fact be an abuse of the process of law as well as of the Court given the peculiar circumstances of each particular case.”
Decision of the Court
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Supreme Court deemed it appropriate to exercise its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, which allows the Court to pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter. Consequently, the Court quashed the FIR, the charge-sheet, and all proceedings arising therefrom.
“Since the complainant is unrepresented, we deem it worthwhile to invoke our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India for quashing the FIR, the charge-sheet, and all other proceedings in pursuance thereof.”
The Court allowed the appeals and disposed of all pending applications, effectively bringing an end to the long-standing dispute between the parties.
Legal Representation
The appellants were represented by senior counsel Mr. Nikhil Goel, assisted by Mr. Ashutosh Ghade, Ms. Naveen Goel, Ms. Siddhi Gupta, and Mr. Adithya K. Roy. The respondents, the State of Gujarat, were represented by Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, along with Ms. Devyani Bhatt and Ms. Neha Singh.
