Quashing Of An FIR After A Chargesheet Is Filed: Tenable In Law?

"In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice. The ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. The compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realization of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice, between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction." – Hon'ble Mr. Justice Y. V. Chandrachud, Former Chief Justice of India.

Frivolous litigation is choking the dockets of the Courts in India and sometimes, legal proceedings degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. Many a time, a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of a criminal offence and such a situation results in the abuse of the process of the court. Hence, the High Courts of the country have been given inherent powers under the Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as "the BNSS"), for the purpose of prevention of abuse of the process of the court and for securing the ends of justice. Exercising its inherent jurisdiction, the High Court has the power to quash a First Information Report (FIR) when the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR 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.

Understanding (FIR)

An FIR is a written document prepared by the police when they receive information about the commission of a cognizable offence (one in which a police officer can arrest without a warrant). It is the initial step in the criminal justice process and sets the investigation in motion. In Hasib v. State of Bihar,¹ it was held that the principal object of the first information report from the point of view of the informant is to set the criminal law in motion and from the point of view of the investigating authorities is to obtain information about the alleged criminal activity so as to be able to take suitable steps for tracing and bringing to book the guilty party. The BNSS, superseding the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (CrPC, hereinafter) has introduced significant changes, including provisions for Zero-FIR and e-FIR.

Zero FIR and e-FIR under BNSS²

A Zero FIR can be filed at any police station where information about a cognizable offence is received, regardless of territorial jurisdiction. After the FIR is registered, the police station must transfer the relevant documents to the police station that has jurisdiction over the matter. The concerned police station then assigns a number to the FIR and proceeds with the investigation. These vital provisions under the BNSS significantly aid the victims, as the police officer is obligated to register the FIR, irrespective of territorial jurisdiction. The BNSS also includes provisions for electronically registering FIRs. However, it mandates that the signature of the person providing the information must be obtained within three days after providing such information, for the e-FIR to be officially recorded. This development is particularly beneficial for victims, particularly women, ensuring timely registration of sensitive cases, while sparing them from the ordeal of repeated recounts during FIR registration.

When can an FIR be quashed?

The High Cout under Section 528 of the BNSS has the power to quash an FIR when the allegations made in the FIR 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. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal,³ the Supreme Court enumerated the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein the High Courts' inherent powers could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice:-

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 CrPC [now, Section 175(1) of the BNSS] except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the CrPC [now, Section 174(2) of the BNSS, 2023].
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 CrPC [now, Section 174(2) of the BNSS, 2023].
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 CrPC (now, BNSS) 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 CrPC (now, BNSS) 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.

It was also held in Bhajan Lal (supra) that the power of quashing an FIR should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases and that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice. In Ramesh Chandra Gupta v. State of U.P. & Ors.,⁴ the Supreme Court reiterated that where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR 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, the power under Section 482 CrPC (now, Section 528 BNSS) could be exercised.

Quashing of FIR after Chargesheet Filed

The High Court cannot permit a prosecution to go on if the matters falls in one of the categories as enumerated (above) in Bhajan Lal (supra), however, an interesting question which arises, is that – when a charge sheet is filed against the accused during the pendency of the petition for quashing of the FIR, whether the High Court is restrained from exercising its inherent jurisdiction or not?

In Shaileshbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel & Another v. State of Gujarat & Ors.,⁵ the Supreme Court held that the High Court under Section 482 Cr. PC. (now, Section 528 BNSS) retains the power to quash an FIR, even after charge-sheet under Section 173(2) CrPC [now, Section 193(3) BNSS] thereof is filed, provided a satisfaction is reached, inter alia, that either the FIR and the charge-sheet read together, even accepted as true and correct without rebuttal, do not disclose the commission of any offence or 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.

Similarly, in Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.⁶ the matter arose from the quashing plea of an F.I.R., where the chargesheet was submitted after institution of the petition under Section 482 CrPC (now, Section 528 BNSS). It was opined that even if the charge sheet had been filed, the Court could still examine if offences alleged to have been committed were prima facie made out or not on the basis of the F.I.R., chargesheet and other documents.

Again, in Mamta Shailesh Chandra v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors.,⁷ the Supreme Court held that if the charge sheet is filed against the accused during the pendency of the petition for quashing of the FIR, the High Court is not restrained from exercising its inherent jurisdiction and could still examine if offences alleged to have been committed were prima facie made out or not on the basis of the F.I.R., charge sheet and other documents.

The Supreme Court, once more, in Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT of Delhi),⁸ held that there is nothing in the words of the Section 482 CrPC (now, Section 528 BNSS) which restricts the exercise of the power of the Court to prevent the abuse of process of court or miscarriage of justice only to the stage of the FIR and that the High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC (now, Section 528 BNSS) even when the discharge application is pending with the trial court. It would be a travesty to hold that proceedings initiated against a person can be interfered with at the stage of FIR but not if it has advanced and the allegations have materialized into a charge-sheet. On the contrary it could be stated that the abuse of process caused by FIR stands aggravated if the FIR has taken the form of a charge-sheet after investigation. The power is conferred to prevent abuse of process of power of any court.

Further, in Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh,⁹ the Supreme Court rejected the contention of the Respondent that the Appellant's quashing petition against the FIR was liable to be dismissed, in any event, as the chargesheet in relation thereto was submitted before the Court and taken on file. It was held that the High Court would continue to have the power to entertain and act upon a petition filed under Section 482 Cr. P.C. (now, Section 528 BNSS) to quash the FIR even when a chargesheet is filed by the police during the pendency of such petition.

Recently, on September 25, 2024, the Supreme Court in Kailashben Mahendrabhai Patel & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.¹⁰ held that there is no prohibition against quashing of the criminal proceedings even after the charge sheet has been filed.

Conclusion

The judicial process is a significant proceeding which can never be converted into an instrument of persecution. Whenever the materials show that the FIR is encompassed with mala fides and has been registered with an ulterior motive, the High Court has the power to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash such an FIR. The High Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC (now, Section 528 BNSS) to entertain and act upon a petition filed under Section 482 Cr. P.C. (now, Section 528 BNSS) to quash the FIR even when a chargesheet is filed by the police during the pendency of such petition. This also goes on to show that the wholesome power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C. (now, Section 528 BNSS) can be exercised to prevent the abuse of the process of the court and secure the ends of justice, in the words of Lord Hewart, the then Lord Chief Justice of England in the case of Rex v. Sussex Justices,¹¹ that "justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done."

Footnotes

1 Hasib v. State of Bihar, (1972) 4 SCC 773.

2 Section 173 of BNSS, 2023.

3 State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.

4 Ramesh Chandra Gupta v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1634.

5 Shaileshbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel & Another v. State of Gujarat & Ors., Criminal Appeal No. 1884 of 2013.

6 Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat & Ors. (2011) 7 SCC 59.

7 Mamta Shailesh Chandra v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors., SLP(Crl.)No(s).7273/2019.

8 Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2019) 11 SCC 706.

9 Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083.

10 Kailashben Mahendrabhai Patel & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 4003/2024.

11 Rex v. Sussex Justices, [1924] 1 KB 256.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.