In a recent judgment, the Delhi High Court addressed petitions seeking the quashing of First Information Reports (FIRs) under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The FIRs were filed by a woman against her cousin and uncle, alleging offenses under Sections 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 509 (word, gesture, or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The petitioners sought to quash these FIRs, arguing that the allegations were baseless and stemmed from an ongoing property dispute.
The case's background involves a contentious property dispute between the complainant and her relatives. The complainant alleged that her cousin (petitioner no. 1) visited the disputed property, recorded a video of her without consent, and subsequently assaulted her by pushing her against a wall and touching her inappropriately. In a separate incident, she accused her uncle (petitioner no. 2) of making obscene gestures towards her while she was in her car with her mother. The petitioners contended that these allegations were fabricated, aiming to misuse the criminal justice system to gain an advantage in the civil property dispute.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, presiding over the case, emphasized the limited scope of the High Court's jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC. She noted that this provision preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. However, it does not confer new powers but only recognizes and preserves powers inherent in the High Court. The court underscored that while it is essential to prevent the misuse of judicial processes for harassment, Section 482 cannot be employed by the accused to prematurely terminate a legitimate prosecution.
The court further elaborated that determining the reliability of evidence is primarily the function of the Trial Court. When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an inquiry into whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether, on a reasonable appreciation of it, the accusations would not be sustained. The court's role at this stage is not to delve into the merits of the case but to assess whether the continuation of proceedings would amount to an abuse of the legal process.
In this context, the court referred to the guidelines set out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India regarding the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC. The Supreme Court has emphasized that the High Court must be satisfied that the FIR or the criminal proceeding is frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive; that it is an abuse of the process of court; and that quashing the FIR or the proceeding is necessary to secure the ends of justice. Additionally, the nature and gravity of the offense alleged, the stage of the investigation or trial, the possibility of prejudice to the accused, and the interest of the public are factors to be considered.
Applying these principles, the Delhi High Court observed that the allegations made by the complainant were specific and serious, involving offenses related to outraging the modesty of a woman. The court noted that the existence of a property dispute does not, per se, provide sufficient ground to presume that the allegations are false. Each case must be evaluated on its own facts and merits. The court concluded that the allegations warranted a thorough investigation and could not be dismissed summarily at this stage.
Consequently, the court refused to quash the FIRs against the petitioners, allowing the legal process to proceed to ensure that the truth of the allegations could be determined through a proper trial. This decision underscores the judiciary's cautious approach in exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, ensuring that these powers are not misused to obstruct the course of justice, especially in cases involving serious allegations.
This judgment serves as a reminder that while the High Court possesses inherent powers to prevent the abuse of the judicial process, these powers must be exercised judiciously. The court must balance the need to protect individuals from frivolous or vexatious litigation against the imperative to allow legitimate prosecutions to proceed. The existence of a civil dispute, such as a property disagreement, does not automatically render related criminal allegations false. Each allegation must be scrutinized based on its own merits, and the appropriate forum for examining the evidence and determining the truthfulness of the allegations is the Trial Court.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.