The Supreme Court has underscored the responsibility of High Courts to consider not only the contents of a First Information Report (FIR) but also the broader context and materials gathered during investigations when dealing with petitions seeking the quashing of criminal proceedings. The Court emphasized that, particularly in frivolous or vexatious cases, the judiciary should delve into additional factors emerging from the case record and adopt a circumspect approach to extract underlying nuances.
A bench comprising Justices B R Gavai and J B Pardiwala made these observations while adjudicating a case where an FIR had been lodged against the accused under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The High Court had declined the petitioner's plea to quash the FIR, prompting the appeal before the Supreme Court.
The apex court held that even if the prosecution's entire case was accepted as true, the essential ingredients to substantiate the alleged offence were not evident. Moreover, the FIR had been filed after a considerable delay, and it failed to specify crucial details such as the date and time of the alleged incidents. Consequently, the Court concluded that the case built by the first informant appeared to be concocted and fabricated, leading to the quashing of criminal proceedings against the accused.
While analysing the scope of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) jurisdiction, the Supreme Court emphasized that the judiciary's role in such cases extends beyond merely examining the contents of the FIR. The Court stated that when an accused invokes inherent powers or extraordinary jurisdiction to seek the quashing of FIR or criminal proceedings, citing frivolousness or ulterior motives, the judiciary must undertake a thorough examination of the FIR, scrutinizing it with care and attention. The Court further noted that the assessment should encompass the circumstances that led to the initiation of the case and the materials gathered during the investigation.
The Court's observation was particularly significant in a scenario involving multiple FIRs registered over time. In such situations, the Court acknowledged the potential for allegations of vengeance rooted in private or personal disputes. This perspective, the Court noted, adds complexity to the assessment of whether FIRs are genuinely motivated by a desire for justice or tainted by ulterior motives.
Source: Link
Picture Source :
