On January 11, 2022, Allahabad High Court while dealing with a petition to quash a First Information Report (FIR) filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) held that Courts can exercise their inherent jurisdiction to quash an FIR while relying on Supreme Court’s judgement in State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others reported (1992) Supp 1 SCC 335 and Others as well as Ramawatar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [2021 SCC Online SC 966].
The applicant and the respondent had their marriage solemnized and were enjoying their matrimonial life together but owing to some trivial issues the FIR in question was filed by the respondent. After the filing of the FIR, an investigation was initiated and the parties were also referred to mediation. The parties had arrived at a mediation settlement and had agreed that all the ongoing proceedings be quashed. The present application had been filed when the investigating officer refused to drop the investigation and did not take into consideration the mediation settlement signed by the parties before the court.
While considering the application the Allahabad High Court relied heavily on the judgement delivered in Ramawatar Case and the Bhajan Lal case. The court was of the considered opinion that since the dispute between the parties has already been settled by way of mediation any consequent investigation by the police shall only pose as an obstruction in the way of justice. Opposite parties relied on the judgement of Allahabad High Court in the case of Ram Lal Yadav and Others vs. The State of U.P. and Others and argued that no interference of courts is permissible in terms of inherent power after the investigation has already started. This argument was dismissed by the court and the court mentioned that the interpretation of the opposing parties’ counsel is wrong.
- Types of Bail in India:
- Regular Bail: It is a direction given by the Court (any Court within the country) to release a person who is already under arrest and kept in police custody. For such Bail, a person can file an application under Section 437 and 439 of the CrPC.
- Interim Bail: Bail granted for a temporary and short period by the Court till the application seeking Anticipatory Bail or Regular Bail is pending before a Court.
- Anticipatory Bail: A direction issued to release a person on Bail even before the person is arrested. In this situation, there is apprehension of arrest and the person is not arrested before the Bail is granted. For such Bail, a person can file an application under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). It is issued only by the Sessions Court and High Court.
As in Criminal Procedure Code 1898, there was no such provision in relating to inherent jurisdiction of High Court, but the legislature added Section 561-A by inserting in 1923 Act No.XVII of 1923. Section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code 1898.
The Law Commission in its 40th report observed that the statutory power under Section 561 A Cr.P.C. is extended only the inherent power of High Court. One may compare it with the recognition of the inherent powers of all civil courts by Section 151 Cr.P.C. Later on, Law Commission in its 41st reports recommended that inherent power of Section 561-A Cr.P.C. be extended to all Criminal Courts to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, but the legislature did not accept the recommendation of commission to extend the inherent power as mentioned in Section 561-A of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898.
As in the case of Ram Lal Yadav case there is no bar from interference in the FIR in application (u/s 482 Cr.P.C.) as this question was already decided in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra) that inherent powers can be invoked in seven conditions, which reads as under:-
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”
The court mentioned that Ram Lal judgement was dealing with a peculiar set of circumstances and it was also mentioned in the judgement that High Court has no power to interfere with the arrest of person during the course of investigation but court can always issue a writ of mandamus, under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution restraining the police officer for misusing his legal power in relation to arrest and FIR can be quashed. Furthermore, the circumstances in the Ramawatar case were somewhat similar to the current case wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court noted that “Having considered the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case in light of the afore-stated principles, as well as having meditated on the application for compromise, we are inclined to invoke the powers under Article 142 and quash the instant Criminal proceedings with the sole objective of doing complete justice between the parties before us.”
In the case of Bhajan Lal the Supreme Court after noting that the power to quash an FIR should only be exercised in a set of exceptional circumstances in order to prevent the miscarriage of justice, the court also laid down some parameters in accordance to which powers under Section 482 should be exercised as discussed above. Moreover, the Supreme Court opined that these parameters should not be considered exhaustive as they may not apply to a myriad of circumstances the courts have to face, giving the Courts the autonomy to decide whether to quash a petition on basis of the circumstances of the case. Further, the same principles were upheld by the Court in the case of Ramawatar. Hence, relying on these judgements by the Supreme Court the Allahabad High Court allowed the application in the present case
About the author
