LexACHIN GUPTA versus STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
* Author [2024] 6 S.C.R. 129 : 2024 INSC 369 Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 2379 of 2024) 03 May 2024 [J.B. Pardiwala* and Manoj Misra, JJ.] Issue for Consideration The appellant herein was chargesheeted u/ss.323, 406, 498A and 506 of IPC. The appellant filed a quashing petition for the purpose of getting the criminal proceedings quashed. The High Court by its impugned order, declined to quash the criminal proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers u/s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Whether the High Court should have exercised its inherent power u/s. 482 of the Cr.P.C. for the purpose of quashing the criminal proceedings. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 323, 406, 498A and 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – The contents of the FIR (dated 09.04.2021) indicated that appellant-husband and his family members had allegedly demanded dowry and thereby caused mental and physical trauma to the first informant-wife (respondent no.2) – After investigation, police filed chargesheet only against appellant – Appellant sought quashing of criminal proceedings – High Court declined to quash the same – Correctness: Held: Appellant and respondent no.2 got married in 2008 – Appellant filed a divorce petition in July 2019 – However, same was later withdrawn as appellant was finding it difficult to take care of his child, while travelling to Court on the dates fixed – Appellant’s mother had filed a domestic violence case against the respondent no.2 in october 2020 under provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Allegations levelled in the FIR were vague, general and sweeping, specifying no instances of criminal conduct – FIR has no specific date or time of the alleged offences – In view of this Court, FIR in question was a counterblast to the divorce petition and also domestic violence case – The FIR was lodged on 09.04.2021, nearly 2 years after filing of the divorce 130 [2024] 6 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports petition by appellant and 6 months after filing of the domestic violence case by her mother-in-law – There is no explanation for delay in filing FIR – According to the Court, it was only filed to harass the appellant and his family members – The High Court should have exercised its inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for the purpose of quashing the criminal proceedings. [Paras 16-19, 36] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised: Held: It is well settled that the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution, only where such exercise is justified by the tests laid down in the Section itself – It is also well settled that Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. does not confer any new power on the High Court but only saves the inherent power, which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Code of Criminal Procedure – There are three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of Court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. [Para 20] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Exercise of power under s.482 – Prevention of abuse of the process of the Court: Held: It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist – The authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has the power to prevent such abuse – It would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice – In exercise of the powers, the court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that the initiation or continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice – When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact – When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto. [Para 21] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – No restriction on exercise of po
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.