Recently Punjab and Haryana High Court expressed concern about false FIRs. The High Court, using the powers vested in it under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code 1973, quashed the FIR based on the compromise arrived. The Court observed an important issue “In fact, the present petition demonstrates that how the process of law is abused just for the whims and fancies of the person like the complainant, who first slapped the petitioner in full public place and then just to suffice her ego, lodged the present FIR and then has compromised the matter.” [JUDGMENT].
Key insights on the law relating FIR quashing
There has been a plethora of false FIR cases recently. Some important / landmark judgments in this respect.
Vijay kumar Ghai v State of West Bengal [Criminal Appeal No. 463 Of 2022]
Para 15 of the judgment. This Court in the widely celebrated judgment of the State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors considered in detail the scope of the High Court powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the FIR and referred to several judicial precedents and held that the High Court should not embark upon an inquiry into the merits and demerits of the allegations and quash the proceedings without allowing the investigating agency to complete its task. At the same time, this Court identified the following cases in which FIR/complaint can be quashed:
“102. (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 16 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 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 Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the 21 proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, 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.
State of Haryana v Ch. Bhajan Lal 1992 AIR 604
Para 4. The core of the Sections 156, 157 and 159 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that if a police officer has reason to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence, he must either proceed with the investigation or cause an investigation to be proceeded with by his subordinate; that in a case where the police officer sees no sufficient ground for investigation, he can dispense with the investigation altogether; that the field of investigation of any cognizable offence is exclusively within the domain of the investigation agencies over which the Courts cannot have control and have no power to stifle or impinge upon the proceedings in the investigation so long as the investigation proceeds in compliance with the provisions relating to investigation and that it is only in a case wherein a police officer decides not to investigate an offence, the concerned Magistrate can intervene and either direct an investigation or in the alternative, if he thinks fit, he himself can, at once proceed or depute any Magistrate sub-ordinate to him to proceed to hold a preliminary inquiry into or otherwise to dispose of the case in the manner provided in the Code. [283G-H; 284A-B]
5.1. The expression “reason to suspect the commission of an offence” used in Section 154(1) Cr. P.C. would mean the sagacity of rationally inferring the commission of a cognizable offence based on the specific articulate facts mentioned in the First Information Report as well as in the Annexures, if any, enclosed and any attending circumstances which may not amount to proof. In other words, the meaning of the expression “reason to suspect” has to be governed and dictated by the facts and circumstances of each case and at in the First Information Report does not arise. [286E-F]
5.2. The commencement of investigation by a police officer is subject to two conditions, firstly, the police officer should have reason to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence as required by Section 157(1) and secondly, the police officer should subjectively satisfy himself as to whether there is sufficient ground for entering on an investigation even before he starts an investigation into the facts and circumstances of the case as contemplated under clause (b) of the proviso to Section 157(1) of the Code. [288B-C]
6. The investigation of an offence is the field exclusively reserved for the police officers whose powers in that field are unfettered so long as the power to investigate into the cognizable offences is legitimately exercised in strict compliance with the provisions falling under Chapter XII of the Code and the Courts are not justified in obliterating the track of investigation when the investigating agencies are well within their legal bounds. A noticeable feature of the scheme under Chapter XIV of the Code is that a Magistrate is kept in the picture at all stages of the police investigation, but he is not authorized to interfere with the actual investigation or to direct the police how that investigation is to be conducted. But if a police officer transgresses the circumscribed limits and improperly and illegally exercises his investigatory powers in breach of any statutory provision causing serious prejudice to the personal liberty and also property of a citizen, then the Court, on being approached by the person aggrieved for the redress of any grievance has to consider the nature and extent of the breach and pass appropriate orders as may be called for without leaving the citizens to the mercy of police echelons since human dignity is a dear value of our Constitution. No one can demand absolute immunity even if he is wrong and claim unquestionable right and unlimited powers exercisable upto unfathomable cosmos.
Parbatbhai Aahir v State of Gujarat criminal appeal no.1723 of 2017
10. Section 482 is prefaced with an overriding provision. The statute saves the inherent power of the High Court, as a superior court, to make such orders as are necessary (i) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court; or (ii) otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In Gian Singh (supra) a bench of three learned Judges of this Court adverted to the body of precedent on the subject and laid down guiding principles which the High Court should consider in determining as to whether to quash an FIR or complaint in the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction. The considerations which must weigh with the High Court are:
“61…the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code.
Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.
In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society.
Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim.
In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.”
Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of UP & Anr, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1674 OF 2012
- In the matter of G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. Reported in (2000) 3 SCC 693 wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High Court should have quashed the complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members had been roped into the matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside.
- In yet another case reported in AIR 2003 SC 1386 in the matter of B.S. Joshi & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Anr. it was observed that there is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XXA containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added with a view to punish the husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. But if the proceedings are initiated by the wife under Section 498A against the husband and his relatives and subsequently she has settled her disputes with her husband and his relatives and the wife and husband agreed for mutual divorce, refusal to exercise inherent powers by the High Court would not be proper as it would prevent woman from settling earlier. Thus, for the purpose of securing the ends of justice quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It would however be a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not to exercise such a power.
- However, we deem it appropriate to add by way of caution that we may not be misunderstood so as to infer that even if there are allegation of overt act indicating the complicity of the members of the family named in the FIR in a given case, cognizance would be unjustified but what we wish to emphasize by highlighting is that, if the FIR as it stands does not disclose specific allegation against accused more so against the co-accused specially in a matter arising out of matrimonial bickering, it would be clear abuse of the legal and judicial process to mechanically send the named accused in the FIR to undergo the trial unless of course the FIR discloses specific allegations which would persuade the court to take cognisance of the offence alleged against the relatives of the main accused who are prima facie not found to have indulged in physical and mental torture of the complainant-wife. It is the well settled principle laid down in cases too numerous to mention, that if the FIR did not disclose the commission of an offence, the court would be justified in quashing the proceedings preventing the abuse of the process of law. Simultaneously, the courts are expected to adopt a cautious approach in matters of quashing specially in cases of matrimonial dispute whether the FIR in fact discloses commission of an offence by the relatives of the principal accused or the FIR prima facie discloses a case of over-implication by involving the entire family of the accused at the instance of the complainant, who is out to settle her scores arising out of the teething problem or skirmish of domestic bickering while settling down in her new matrimonial surrounding.
Sharda Prasad Sinha Vs. State of Bihar, 1977 AIR 1754
It is now settled law that where the allegations set out in the complaint or the charge-sheet do not constitute any offence, it is competent to the High Court exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the order passed by the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence
Dinesh Sharma & Others Vs. State and Anr, CRL.M.C. 1002/2021
Para 5 and 6 of the judgment clearly states the crux of the Gian Singh Judgment
Remedy
It may be recalled that FIR/ complaints can be filed in the following ways under the Criminal Procedure Code 1973(CrPC):-
- Lodging of First Information Report before police under section 154 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).
- Complaint made before superintendent of police under section 154(3) CrPC.
- Directions for FIR by magistrate under section 156(3) CrPC
- Cognizance of offence by magistrate under section 190 CrPC.
- Private complaint made before Magistrate under section 200 CrPC.
Remedy exists against filing of false FIR. The accused can approach the concerned High Court under Article 226 for issuing writ petition to the Police Officer for suitable directions. The accused can also file petition on the original side of the concerned high court under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code 1973, which gives it special power in the interest of justice not covered elsewhere.
In the Case of State of Haryana v. Choudhary Bhajan Lal (supra) the Apex Court issued the guidelines vide para 8.1for quashing the FIR.
Other Remedies
- Counter FIR can be filed under Section 182 of Indian Penal Code.
- Besides, after acquittal, counter case can be filed against the complainant (Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860).
- After acquittal, counter case can be filed against the police officer under Sections 167, 218 or 220 of Indian Penal Code 1860).
- After acquittal, defamation can also be filed under Section 499 and 500 of Indian Penal Code 1860 against the complainant and / or police officer.
- The claim can be filed for compensation under Section 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 against the person who had lodged the false FIR.
Proactive actions are required by the Police as well as the Judiciary to deal with the menace of False FIR.
International Law on False Police Report
US LAW: If lie by omission or provide false information on a police report, you can be charged with either a misdemeanor or a felony in New York State. In some cases, your penalty may include up to one year in jail. In more severe cases, however, an individual charged with lying on a police report may be faced with a penalty of up to seven years in state prison.
Singapore Law: Lying to the authorities is a criminal offence and encompasses a wide range of scenarios in Singapore which includes lodging false police reports. Under section 177 of the Penal Code, an individual who is legally bound to provide information to the authorities but knowingly offers false information instead is liable for a fine of up to $5,000, a jail term of up to 6 months or both.
The judgments discussed above provide sufficient guidelines but the concern raised by the Hon’ble court about the false FIR has been dealt with by law in the following manner. The punishment under Section 182 IPC is 6 months with a fine of Rs. 1000/- whereas under section 211 IPC the punishment is upto 2 years or fine or both and likewise is the punishment for defamation case. Is this a strong deterrence to prevent abuse of law is a question of deliberation.
About the author
EDITOR - Adv. Jyoti Srivastava
Add Comment