Himachal Pradesh High Court
Chetan Singh& Another vs State Of H.P. & Another on 26 June, 2025
CRMMO/258/2016
.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. MMO No. 258 of 2016
Reserved on: 27.05.2025
.
Date of Decision: 26.06.2025
Chetan Singh& another …. Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. & another …. Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? No
For the Petitioners : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior
Advocate, with Mr. Sparsh Bhushan,
Advocate.
For Respondents : Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate
General, for respondent No.1/State.
Mr. Surya Chauhan, Advocate, for
respondent No.2.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The petitioners have filed the present petition for
quashing of F.I.R. No.117 of 2016, dated 22.04.2016 registered for
____________________
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on – 26/06/2025 21:24:53 :::CIS
2
CRMMO/258/2016
the commission of offences punishable under Sections 447, 323,
and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at
.
Police Station Balh, District Mandi, H.P. and the consequential
proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R.
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present
petition are that the informant, Nageshwar Thakur, made a
complaint to the police stating that Devi Singh informed him
telephonically on 22.04.2016 at about 8:30 a.m. that Chetan had
constructed a concrete wall and cement pole on the informant’s
land. The informant, Prem Thakur and Hem Raj went to the land
and found that a concrete wall and two cement poles were
constructed on the land. They were discussing the matter when
Chetan and his wife, Mamta, came to the spot and started abusing
them. They claimed that the land belonged to them. Mamta had a
stick. They started beating the informant party. The incident was
witnessed by one Bahadur Singh. The informant sustained injuries
::: Downloaded on – 26/06/2025 21:24:53 :::CIS
3
CRMMO/258/2016
on his left hand. The police registered the F.I.R. and conducted the
investigation
.
3. Being aggrieved by the registration of the F.I.R., the
petitioners have filed the present petition, asserting that
respondent No.2, along with his father and another person, came
to the land of the petitioners bearing Khasra No. 222/12. They
started uprooting the poles. The petitioner No.2, Mamta, ran to the
spot and asked them not to uproot the poles; however, respondent
No.2 molested her. She was hit by a stone on her head. The blood
started oozing out of her head. Petitioner No.1, Chetan, and his
children came out of the house. Respondent No.2 filed a false F.I.R.
to save himself and the other persons. The petitioners also went to
the Police Station and reported the matter. The incident was video
recorded, and it shows the injury being inflicted upon the head of
petitioner No.2. The police assured to take action after watching
the video recording,but failed to take any action. The police cited
Bahadur Singh as a witness, who was evicted from the land because
::: Downloaded on – 26/06/2025 21:24:53 :::CIS
4
CRMMO/258/2016
of the complaint and writ petition filed by the petitioners. He is
aggrieved by this fact and wants to teach a lesson to the petitioners.
.
The informant purchased the land from the co-sharers on 2nd, 3rd
and 4th May, 2016; however, the incident occurred on 22.04.2016.
The land was demarcated, and fencing was erected after the
demarcation. The continuation of the proceedings amounts to an
abuse of the process of the Court; therefore, it was prayed that the
present petition be allowed and the F.I.R. and consequential
proceedings arising out of the present F.I.R. be quashed.
4. The State has filed a reply taking a preliminary
objection regarding the lack of maintainability. The contents of the
petition were denied on the merits. However, registration of F.I.R.
No. 118 of 2016 dated 22.04.2016 at the instance of petitioner No.2
was not disputed. It was asserted that the informant, Prem Singh
and Hem Raj visited the Police Station on 22.04.2016 and got the
F.I.R. No. 117 of 2016 dated 22.04.2016 registered. The informant
was medically examined at CHC Ratti, and he was found to have
::: Downloaded on – 26/06/2025 21:24:53 :::CIS
5
CRMMO/258/2016
sustained a simple injury. Khasra No. 222 was demarcated, and the
concrete wall and cement poles were found on Khasra No.222
.
owned by the informant. The rest of the cemented poles were
found in Khasra No. 221 /2 owned by both parties. The Police also
investigated F.I.R. No.118 of 2016 and found the commission of
offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 354, 451, 504, 506
read with Section 34 of the IPC. Separate charge sheets were filed
before the competent Court in both the FIRs.
r The matter is
pending before the competent Court of law. The photographs and
CDs were seized by the police and were made part of the charge
sheet. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be
dismissed.
5. A separate reply was filed by respondent No.2
informant, taking preliminary objections regarding the lack of
maintainability and the petition being an abuse of process of law. It
was asserted that the petitioners have encroached upon the
Government land, and this fact came to the notice while
::: Downloaded on – 26/06/2025 21:24:53 :::CIS
6
CRMMO/258/2016
conducting demarcation. Khasra No. 222 is owned and possessed
by the informant. He is a co-sharer over Khasra No. 221/02, and a
.
partition case is pending between the co-sharers. Petitioner No. 1
is running a college in the name of his wife, even though he is a
government servant. This fact was brought to the notice of the
higher authorities by the informant, and the petitioner became
No.2 against the informant.
r to
inimical to the informant. A false F.I.R. was lodged by petitioner
Therefore, it was prayed that the
present petition be dismissed.
6. I have heard Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan,learned Senior
Counsel, assisted by Mr. Sparsh Bhushan, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for
the respondent No.1/State and Mr. Surya Chauhan, learned counsel
for respondent No.2.
7. Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned Senior counsel for the
petitioners/accused, submitted that the incident was video
recorded and the recording shows an injury being caused to the
::: Downloaded on – 26/06/2025 21:24:53 :::CIS
7
CRMMO/258/2016
informant by a stone. Hem Raj and Bahadur Singh executed the
affidavits in which they denied that the incident mentioned in F.I.R.
.
No.117 of 2016. These affidavits clearly show that the allegations
made in the F.I.R. are false. The continuation of the proceedings
amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court. Therefore, he
prayed that the present petition be allowed and F.I.R. and
8.
r to
consequential proceedings arising out of the F.I.R. be quashed.
Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for
respondent No.1/State, submitted that both parties presented
different versions regarding the incident. The video recording does
not show the complete incident, and no findings can be recorded
on the basis of the video recording. The authenticity of the
affidavits has not been established, and their credibility has to be
tested by the cross-examination of the witnesses. Therefore, he
prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
9. Mr. Surya Chauhan, learned counsel for respondent
No.2, informant, adopted the submissions advanced by Mr. Ajit
::: Downloaded on – 26/06/2025 21:24:53 :::CIS
8
CRMMO/258/2016
Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondent
No.1/State, and prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
.
10. I have given considerable thought to the submissions
made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.
11. The law relating to quashing of criminal cases was
explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.N. John v. State of U.P.,
2025 SCC OnLine SC 7 as under: –
“7. As far as the quashing of criminal cases is concerned, it is
now more or less well settled as regards the principles to be
applied by the court. In this regard, one may refer to the
decision of this Court in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan
Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein this Court hassummarised some of the principles under which
FIR/complaints/criminal cases could be quashed in the
following words:
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various
relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of
the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series
of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinarypower under Article 226 or the inherent powers under
Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and
reproduced above, we give the following categories of
cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be
exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any::: Downloaded on – 26/06/2025 21:24:53 :::CIS
9CRMMO/258/2016
court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it
may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly.
defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible
guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list
of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be
exercised.
(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 againstthe accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information
report and other materials, if any, accompanyingthe 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 same do not disclose thecommission 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
::: Downloaded on – 26/06/2025 21:24:53 :::CIS
10
CRMMO/258/2016
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 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 Code
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 a
private and personal grudge.” (emphasis added)
8. Of the aforesaid criteria, clause no. (1), (4) and (6) would
be of relevance to us in this case.
In clause (1) it has been mentioned that 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, then the FIR
or the complaint can be quashed.
As per clause (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 dated by the Magistrate as
contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the CrPC, and in such
a situation, the FIR can be quashed.
::: Downloaded on – 26/06/2025 21:24:53 :::CIS
11
CRMMO/258/2016
Similarly, as provided under clause (6), if there is an express
legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the CrPC or the
.
concerned Act under which the criminal proceedings are
instituted, such proceedings can be quashed.”
12. This position was reiterated in Ajay Malik v. State of
Uttarakhand, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 185, wherein it was observed:
“8. It is well established that a High Court, in exercising its
extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, mayissue orders to prevent the abuse of court processes or to
secure the ends of justice. These inherent powers are neither
controlled nor limited by any other statutory provision.
However, given the broad and profound nature of this
authority, the High Court must exercise it sparingly. Theconditions for invoking such powers are embedded
within Section 482 of the CrPC itself, allowing the High
Court to act only in cases of clear abuse of process or whereintervention is essential to uphold the ends of justice.
9. It is in this backdrop that this Court, over the
course of several decades, has laid down the principles andguidelines that High Courts must follow before quashing
criminal proceedings at the threshold, thereby pre-emptingthe Prosecution from building its case before the Trial Court.
The grounds for quashing, inter alia, contemplate the
following situations : (i) the criminal complaint has beenfiled with mala fides; (ii) the FIR represents an abuse of the
legal process; (iii) no prima facie offence is made out; (iv) the
dispute is civil in nature; (v.) the complaint contains vague
and omnibus allegations; and (vi) the parties are willing to::: Downloaded on – 26/06/2025 21:24:53 :::CIS
12CRMMO/258/2016
settle and compound the dispute amicably (State of Haryana
v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335).
.
13. It was held in State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy (1977)
2 SCC 699: 1977 SCC (Cri) 404 that the High Court can quash the
criminal proceedings if they amount to an abuse of the process of
the Court. It was observed on page 703:
“7. … In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High
Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the
conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would
be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends ofjustice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The
saving of the High Court’s inherent powers, both in civil and
criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public
purpose, which is that a court proceeding ought not to be
permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment orpersecution. 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 wouldjustify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the
interest of justice. The ends of justice are higher than theends of mere law, though justice has got to be administered
according to laws made by the legislature. The compellingnecessity for making these observations is that without a
proper realisation 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.”
::: Downloaded on – 26/06/2025 21:24:53 :::CIS
13
CRMMO/258/2016
14. The term abuse of the process was explained in
Chandran Ratnaswami v. K.C. Palanisamy, (2013) 6 SCC 740: (2014) 1
.
SCC (Cri) 447: 2013 SCC OnLine SC 450 at page 761:
33. The doctrine of abuse of process of court and the remedy
of refusal to allow the trial to proceed is a well-established
and recognised doctrine both by the English courts and
courts in India. There are some established principles of lawwhich bar the trial when there appears to be an abuse of the
process of the court.
34. Lord Morris in Connelly v. Director of Public
Prosecutions[1964 AC 1254 : (1964) 2 WLR 1145 : (1964) 2 All ER401 (HL)], observed: (AC pp. 1301-02)
“There can be no doubt that a court which is endowed
with a particular jurisdiction has powers which are
necessary to enable it to act effectively within suchjurisdiction. … A court must enjoy such powers in order to
enforce its rules of practice and to suppress any abuses of
its process and to defeat any attempted thwarting of itsprocess.
***
The power (which is inherent in a court’s jurisdiction) to
prevent abuses of its process and to control its procedure
must in a criminal court include a power to safeguard an
accused person from oppression or prejudice.”
In his separate pronouncement, Lord Delvin in the same case
observed that where particular criminal proceedings
::: Downloaded on – 26/06/2025 21:24:53 :::CIS
14
CRMMO/258/2016
constitute an abuse of process, the court is empowered to
refuse to allow the indictment to proceed to trial.
.
35. In Hui Chi-ming v. R. [(1992) 1 AC 34 : (1991) 3 WLR 495 :
(1991) 3 All ER 897 (PC)], the Privy Council defined the word
“abuse of process” as something so unfair and wrong with
the prosecution that the court should not allow a prosecutorto proceed with what is, in all other respects, a perfectly
supportable case.
36. In the leading case of R. v. Horseferry Road Magistrates’
Court, ex p Bennett [(1994) 1 AC 42: (1993) 3 WLR 90: (1993) 3
All ER 138 (HL)], on the application of the abuse of process,
the court confirms that an abuse of process justifying the
stay of prosecution could arise in the following
circumstances:
(i) where it would be impossible to give the accused a fair
trial; or
(ii) where it would amount to misuse/manipulation of the
process because it offends the court’s sense of justice and
propriety to be asked to try the accused in the
circumstances of the particular case.
37. In R. v. Derby Crown Court, ex p Brooks [(1984) 80 Cr App R
164 (DC)], Lord Chief Justice Ormrod stated:
“It may be an abuse of process if either (a) the
prosecution has manipulated or misused the process ofthe court to deprive the defendant of a protection
provided by law or to take unfair advantage of a
technicality, or (b) on the balance of probability the
defendant has been, or will be, prejudiced in the
preparation of conduct of his defence by delay on the part
of the prosecution which is unjustifiable.”
::: Downloaded on – 26/06/2025 21:24:53 :::CIS
15
CRMMO/258/2016
38. Neill, L.J. in R. v. Beckford (Anthony) [(1996) 1 Cr App R 94:
1995 RTR 251 (CA)], observed that:
.
“The jurisdiction to stay can be exercised in many
different circumstances. Nevertheless, two main strands
can be detected in the authorities: (a) cases where the
court concludes that the defendant cannot receive a fairtrial; (b) cases where the court concludes that it would be
unfair for the defendant to be tried.”
What is unfair and wrong will be for the court to determine
on the individual facts of each case.
15.
It was held in Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P., (2023) 15 SCC
488: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 950that where the proceedings are
frivolous or vexatious, the Court owes a duty to quash them.
However, the Court cannot appreciate the material while
exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC. It was
observed at page 498:
13. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a
duty to look into many other attending circumstances
emerging from the record of the case over and above the
averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection,try to read in between the lines. The Court, while exercising
its jurisdiction under Section 482CrPC or Article 226 of the
Constitution, need not restrict itself only to the stage of a
case but is empowered to take into account the overall
circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the::: Downloaded on – 26/06/2025 21:24:53 :::CIS
16CRMMO/258/2016
case as well as the materials collected in the course of
investigation. Take, for instance, the case at hand. Multiple.
FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the
background of such circumstances that the registration of
multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the
issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal
grudge, as alleged.
14.State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy [State of
A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy, (2004) 6 SCC 522: 2004 SCC
(Cri) 1805], a two-judge Bench of this Court elaborated on
the types of materials the High Court can assess to quash an
FIR. The Court drew a fine distinction between consideration
of materials that were tendered as evidence and appreciation
of such evidence. Only such material that manifestly fails to
prove the accusation in the FIR can be considered for
quashing an FIR. The Court held : (Golconda Linga Swamy
case [State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy, (2004) 6 SCC 522:
2004 SCC (Cri) 1805], SCC p. 527, paras 5-7)
“5. … Authority of the court exists for the advancement of
justice, and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority
so as to produce injustice, the court has power to preventsuch abuse. It would be an abuse of the process of the
court to allow any action which would result in injusticeand prevent the promotion of justice. In the exercise of its
powers court would be justified in quashing any
proceeding if it finds that initiation or continuance of itamounts to abuse of the process of the 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::: Downloaded on – 26/06/2025 21:24:53 :::CIS
17CRMMO/258/2016
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.
6. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab [R.P. Kapur v. State of
Punjab, 1960 SCC OnLine SC 21: AIR 1960 SC 866], this Court
summarised some categories of cases where inherent
power can and should be exercised to quash the
proceedings : (SCC OnLine SC para 6)
(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar
against the institution or continuance, e.g. want of
sanction;
(ii) where the allegations in the first information
report or complaint taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence
alleged;
(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there
is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced
clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.
7. In dealing with the last category, it is important to bear in
mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal
evidence or where there is evidence which is clearly
inconsistent with the accusations made, and a case where
there is legal evidence which, on appreciation, may or may
not support the accusations. When exercising jurisdiction
under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not
ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in
question is reliable or not or whether, on a reasonable
appreciation of it,the accusation would not be sustained. That
is the function of the trial Judge. The judicial process, no
doubt, should not be an instrument of oppression or
::: Downloaded on – 26/06/2025 21:24:53 :::CIS
18
CRMMO/258/2016
needless harassment. The court should be circumspect
and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all
.
relevant facts and circumstances into consideration
before issuing the process, lest it would be an instrument
in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta
to harass any person needlessly. At the same time, the
section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to
short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden
death.” (emphasis supplied)
16. The present petition is to be decided as per the
17.
r to
parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Perusal of the F.I.R. shows that the informant was told
that Chetan had constructed a concrete wall and cement poles on
the informant’s land. The informant visited the spot and found a
concrete wall and cement poles. He was discussing the matter
when Chetan and Mamta reached the spot and stated that the land
belonged to them. They started beating the informant with the
stick. The informant sustained an injury on his left hand. These
allegations constitute the commission of a cognisable offence. The
police also conducted an investigation and obtained demarcation of
the land during which a concrete wall and two cement poles were
::: Downloaded on – 26/06/2025 21:24:53 :::CIS
19
CRMMO/258/2016
found to be constructed on Khasra No. 222 owned by the informant.
This demarcation corroborates the informant’s version that the
.
concrete wall and cement poles were constructed on his land.
18. A heavy reliance was placed upon the video recording in
which the parties were shown quarrelling with each other, and an
injury was caused by a stone to the head of petitioner No.2;
however, the video recording is not complete. It does not show the
genesis of the incident, and it is difficult to say from the video
recording played in the Court that the incident asserted in the F.I.R.
had not taken place or that petitioner No.2 had not caused any
injury to the informant with a stick.
19. A heavy reliance was placed upon the affidavits
executed by Hem Raj and Bahadur Singh. It was rightly submitted
on behalf of the State that it is impermissible to rely upon the
documents not forming part of the charge-sheet, especially when
the authenticity of these affidavits is yet to be seen. It was laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in MCD v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi,
::: Downloaded on – 26/06/2025 21:24:53 :::CIS
20
CRMMO/258/2016
(1983) 1 SCC 1: 1983 SCC (Cri) 115 that the proceedings can be
quashed on the face of the complaint and the papers accompanying
.
the same, no offence is constituted. It is not permissible to add or
subtract anything. It was observed:
“10. It is, therefore, manifestly clear that proceedings
against an accused in the initial stages can be quashed onlyif, on the face of the complaint or the papers accompanying
the same, no offence is constituted. In other words, the test
is that taking the allegations and the complaint as they are,
without adding or subtracting anything, if no offence ismade out, then the High Court will be justified in quashing
the proceedings in exercise of its powers under Section 482
of the present Code.”
20. Madras High Court also held in Ganga Bai v. Shriram,
1990 SCC OnLine MP 213: ILR 1992 MP 964: 1991 Cri LJ 2018, that the
fresh evidence is not permissible or desirable in the proceedings
under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. It was observed:
“Proceedings under Section 482, Cr.P.C. cannot be allowed
to be converted into a full-dressed trial. Shri Maheshwari
filed a photostat copy of an order dated 28.7.1983, passed in
Criminal Case No. 1005 of 1977, to which the present
petitioner was not a party. Fresh evidence at this stage is
neither permissible nor desirable. The respondent, by filing this::: Downloaded on – 26/06/2025 21:24:53 :::CIS
21CRMMO/258/2016
document, is virtually introducing additional evidence, which is
not the object of Section 482, Cr. P.C.”
.
21. Andhra Pradesh High Court also took a similar view in
Bharat Metal Box Company Limited, Hyderabad and Others vs. G. K.
Strips Private Limited and another, 2004 STPL 43 AP, and held:
“9. This Court can only look into the complaint and the
documents filed along with it, and the sworn statements of
the witnesses, if any recorded. While judging the
correctness of the proceedings, it cannot look into the
documents, which were not filed before the lower Court.
Section 482 Cr.PC debars the Court from looking into fresh
documents, in view of the principles laid down by the
Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa and
another, 2002 (1) Supreme 192. The relevant portion of the
said judgment reads as follows:
“The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears
that on consideration of the allegations, in the light ofthe statement made on oath of the complainant that
the ingredients of the offence or offences are disclosedand there is no material to show that the complaint is
mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event therewould be no justification for interference by the High
Court. When information is lodged at the Police Station
and an offence is registered, then the mala fides of the
informant would be of secondary importance. It is the
material collected during the investigation and the
evidence presented in Court which decides the fate of::: Downloaded on – 26/06/2025 21:24:53 :::CIS
22CRMMO/258/2016
the accused person. The allegations of mala fides
against the informant are of no consequence and.
cannot by itself be the basis for quashing the
proceedings”.
22. A similar view was taken in Mahendra K.C. v. State of
Karnataka, (2022) 2 SCC 129: (2022) 1 SCC (Cri) 401, wherein it was
observed on page 142:
“16. … the test to be applied is whether the allegations in
the complaint, as they stand, without adding or detracting
from the complaint, prima facie establish the ingredients ofthe offence alleged. At this stage, the High Court cannot test
the veracity of the allegations, nor, for that matter, can it
proceed in the manner that a judge conducting a trial
would, based on the evidence collected during the course of
the trial.”
23. This position was reiterated in Supriya Jain v. State of
Haryana, (2023) 7 SCC 711: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 765, wherein it was
held:
13. All these documents which the petitioner seeks to rely on,
if genuine, could be helpful for her defence at the trial, but
the same are not material at the stage of deciding whether
quashing as prayed for by her before the High Court was
warranted or not. We, therefore, see no reason to place any
reliance on these three documents.
::: Downloaded on – 26/06/2025 21:24:53 :::CIS
23
CRMMO/258/2016
24. A similar view was taken in Iveco Magirus
Brandschutztechnik GMBH v. Nirmal Kishore Bhartiya, (2024) 2 SCC
.
86: (2024) 1 SCC (Cri) 512: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1258, wherein it was
observed:
“63. Adverting to the aspect of the exercise of jurisdiction by
the High Courts under Section 482CrPC, in a case where theoffence of defamation is claimed by the accused to have not
been committed based on any of the Exceptions and a prayer
for quashing is made, the law seems to be well settled that the
High Courts can go no further and enlarge the scope of inquiry ifthe accused seeks to rely on materials which were not there
before the Magistrate. This is based on the simple proposition
that what the Magistrate could not do, the High Courts may not
do. We may not be understood to undermine the High
Courts’ powers saved by Section 482CrPC; such powers arealways available to be exercised ex debito justitiae , i.e. to do
real and substantial justice for the administration of which
alone the High Courts exist. However, the tests laid down forquashing an FIR or criminal proceedings arising from a
police report by the High Courts in the exercise ofjurisdiction under Section 482CrPC not being substantially
different from the tests laid down for quashing a process
issued under Section 204 read with Section 200, the HighCourts on recording due satisfaction are empowered to
interfere if on a reading of the complaint, the substance of
statements on oath of the complainant and the witness, if
any, and documentary evidence as produced, no offence is
made out and that proceedings, if allowed to continue,::: Downloaded on – 26/06/2025 21:24:53 :::CIS
24CRMMO/258/2016
would amount to an abuse of the legal process. This, too,
would be impermissible if the justice of a given case does not.
overwhelmingly so demand.” (Emphasis supplied).
25. Therefore, it is not permissible to look into the
affidavits. Further, the witnesses are to be examined and cross-
examined, and the effect of their testimonies is to be seen with
other evidence. Hence, it is impermissible to act upon the affidavits
executed by them while exercising inherent jurisdiction.
26. It was submitted that a cross F.I.R. was lodged in the
present case, and it shows the falsity of the present F.I.R. This
submission cannot be accepted. It was laid down in Maneesha
Yadav v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 643,that the Court
exercising inherent jurisdiction to quash the FIR cannot go into the
truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations. It was observed:-
“13. As has already been observed hereinabove, the Court
would not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to thereliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations
made in the FIR or the complaint at the stage of quashing of
the proceedings under Section 482 Cr. P.C. However, the
allegations made in the FIR/complaint, if taken at their face
value, must disclose the commission of an offence and make::: Downloaded on – 26/06/2025 21:24:53 :::CIS
25CRMMO/258/2016
out a case against the accused. At the cost of repetition, in the
present case, the allegations made in the FIR/complaint,.
even if taken at their face value, do not disclose the
commission of an offence or make out a case against the
accused. We are of the considered view that the present case
would fall under Category-3 of the categories enumerated bythis Court in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra).
14. We may gainfully refer to the observations of this Court in
the case of Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT of Delhi),
Department of Home (2019) 11 SCC 706: 2018 INSC 1060:
“14. First, we would like to deal with the submission of
the learned Senior Counsel for Respondent 2 that once
the charge sheet is filed, the petition for quashing ofthe FIR is untenable. We do not see any merit in this
submission, keeping in mind the position of this Court
in Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat [Joseph Salvaraj
A. v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 7 SCC 59: (2011) 3 SCC (Cri)
23]. In Joseph Salvaraj A. [Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State ofGujarat, (2011) 7 SCC 59: (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 23], this
Court while deciding the question of whether the High
Court could entertain the Section 482 petition forquashing of FIR when the charge-sheet was filed by
the police during the pendency of the Section 482petition, observed: (SCC p. 63, para 16)
“16. Thus, the general conspectus of the varioussections under which the appellant is being
charged and is to be prosecuted would show that
the same is not made out even prima facie from
the complainant’s FIR. Even if the charge sheet
had been filed, the learned Single Judge [Joesph
Saivaraj A. v. State of Gujarat, 2007 SCC OnLine Guj::: Downloaded on – 26/06/2025 21:24:53 :::CIS
26CRMMO/258/2016
365] could have still examined whether the
offences alleged to have been committed by the.
appellant were prima facie made out from the
complainant’s FIR, charge-sheet, documents, etc.
or not.”
27. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Dharambeer Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand, (2025) 1 SCC 392:
2024 SCC OnLine SC 1894 that the Court cannot conduct a mini-trial
observed at page 397:
r to
while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC. It was“17. This Court, in a series of judgments, has held that while
exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the High Court is not
supposed to hold a mini-trial. A profitable reference can bemade to the judgment in CBI v. Aryan Singh [CBI v. Aryan
Singh, (2023) 18 SCC 399: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 379]. The
relevant paragraph from the judgment is extractedhereunder: (SCC paras 6-7)
6. … As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of
discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings,
while exercising the powers under Section 482CrPC, theCourt is not required to conduct the mini-trial. …
7. … At the stage of discharge and/or while exercising the
powers under Section 482CrPC, the Court has very limited
jurisdiction and is required to consider ‘whether any
sufficient material is available to proceed further against::: Downloaded on – 26/06/2025 21:24:53 :::CIS
27CRMMO/258/2016
the accused for which the accused is required to be tried
or not’.”
.
28. It was held in Punit Beriwala v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025
SCC OnLine SC 983, that the power to quash a complaint/FIR should
be exercised sparingly and not routinely. It was observed: –
“29. It is settled law that the power of quashing of a
complaint/FIR should be exercised sparingly with
circumspection, and while exercising this power, the Court
must believe the averments and allegations in the
complaint to be true and correct. It has been repeatedly held
that, save in exceptional cases where non-interference
would result in a miscarriage of justice, the Court and the
judicial process should not interfere at the stage of
investigation of offences. Extraordinary and inherent
powers of the Court should not be used in a routine manner
according to its whims or caprice.”
29. Therefore, it is impermissible for this Court to
determine the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations made in
it
30. It is undisputed that the police have filed the charge-
sheet before the learned Trial Court. Hence, the learned Trial Court
is seized of the matter. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Iqbal v. State of U.P., (2023) 8 SCC 734: 2023 SCC OnLine SC
::: Downloaded on – 26/06/2025 21:24:53 :::CIS
28
CRMMO/258/2016
949 that when the charge sheet has been filed, the learned Trial
Court should be left to appreciate the same. It was observed:
.
“At the same time, we also take notice of the fact that the
investigation has been completed and the charge sheet isready to be filed. Although the allegations levelled in the FIR
do not inspire any confidence, particularly in the absence of
any specific date, time, etc. of the alleged offences, we are of
the view that the appellants should prefer a dischargeapplication before the trial court under Section 227 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). We say so because even
according to the State, the investigation is over and the
charge sheet is ready to be filed before the competent court.
In such circumstances, the trial court should be allowed to
look into the materials which the investigating officer
might have collected forming part of the charge sheet. If
any such discharge application is filed, the trial court shall
look into the materials and take a call whether anydischarge case is made out or not.”
31. No other point was urged.
32. Consequently, the present petition fails, and the same is
dismissed. The present petition stands disposed of, and so are the
miscellaneous applications, if any.
::: Downloaded on – 26/06/2025 21:24:53 :::CIS
29
CRMMO/258/2016
33. The observations made herein before shall remain
confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing
.
whatsoever on the merits of the case.
(Rakesh Kainthla)
Judge
26th June, 2025.
(ravinder)
::: Downloaded on – 26/06/2025 21:24:53 :::CIS