When deciding a petition to quash under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or Article 226 of the Constitution, is the Court confined to the averments made in the FIR or complaint?

No. It will not be just enough to look into the averments in the FIR or complaint alone for ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients of the alleged offence are disclosed. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings the Court owes a duty to look into the other attending circumstances emerging from the record, to read in between the lines with due care and circumspection, and to take into account the overall circumstances leading to registration of the case as well as the materials collected during investigation.

Constitution of India — Art.226 — Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s.482 — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss.406, 420, 120-B — Quashing of FIR — Investigation stage — Vague allegations — Abuse of process of law — Constitution of India — Art.226 — Quashing of FIR not confined to s.482 — Held: Quashing of criminal proceedings is normally sought in exercise of the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. That does not mean it cannot be done in invocation of the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution. (¶6) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s.482 — Interference at the investigation stage — Held further: The High Court may interfere with an investigation where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, and may quash an FIR which discloses no offence without anything being added to or subtracted from its recitals. (¶8, 9) Constitution of India — Art.226 — Material beyond the averments in the FIR — Held further: The Court is not confined to the averments in the FIR when ascertaining whether the ingredients of the alleged offence are disclosed. It owes a duty to look into the other attending circumstances emerging from the record and to read in between the lines. (¶11) Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss.406, 420, 120-B — Vague allegations — Abuse of process — Held further: Where, besides vague allegations, the recitals even if taken as true disclose no offence against an accused, asking him to stand the trial is an abuse of process of law. FIR and further proceedings quashed qua the appellant; appeal allowed. (¶13, 14)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of Kim Wansoo v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India