Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Kailashben Mahendrabhai Patel & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr  has held that criminal proceedings can be quashed even after filing of the chargesheet. 

What was the Background of the Kailashben Mahendrabhai Patel & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr Case? 

• In the present case, the respondent No.2 (wife) filed a complaint under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) against the appellants, who are her stepmother in-law (appellant no. 1), step brother-in-law (appellant no. 2), father-in-law (appellant no. 3), and the Munim (appellant no. 4). 
• The allegations were made that the appellant threatened the respondent to deprive her of her share in the property at the time when she gave birth to her daughter 8 years back. 
• After a time when she came back to her matrimonial house she was deprived of food and the in laws also physically assaulted her. 
• Later, the appellants threatened her, which was endangering her life and the life of her husband and her children, which made her file the present complaint. 
• Based on the allegations the chargesheet was filed. 
• The appellants filed the petition before the Bombay High Court for quashing the chargesheet and the First Information Report (FIR). 
• The High Court held that the present case is the prima facie case of cruelty as per Section 498A of IPC. 
• The High Court rejected the petition filed by the appellants that neither the Police station nor the courts have the jurisdiction to take the cognizance. 
• The present appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order of the High Court before the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court observed the present case based on the analysis made by the Bombay High Court: 
  • Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), the Bombay High Court concluded that exercise of power for quashing an FIR/Complaint is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 
  • It is observed by the Supreme Court that no mention of husband has been made by the respondent (wife) even when all the complaints made were regarding demand of dowry. 
  • It is also rightly observed by the Supreme Court that both the husband and wife rightly divided the cases i.e. the husband filed a civil suit while the wife filed the criminal case which has no mention in the present case. 
    • The husband in his civil suit filed against the present appellants only seeking a declaration that the property is ancestral in nature and that the father has no right to alienate or dispose of the property. 
  • It can be inferred from the present criminal suit filed by the wife that the dispute is basically based on share in property. 
    • It is to be observed that after filing of the civil suit by the husband the respondent filed for the domestic violence complaint against the appellants which was dismissed by the trial court by stating that the same has been filed with mala fide intentions. 
  • The supreme Court observed that this case is yet another instance of abuse of criminal process and it would not be fair and just to subject the appellants to the entire criminal law process. 
• The Supreme Court, based on the above observations allowed the present appeal and dismissed the order of the High Court and ordered to quash the FIR and chargesheet filed against the appellants. 
• The Supreme Court held that the High Court has inherent power under Section 482 of CrPC to quash the criminal proceedings even after filing of the chargesheet. 

What is Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)?  

About: 

• This section was earlier covered under Section 482 of CrPC.  
• Section 528 of BNSS deals with the saving of inherent powers of the High Court.  
• It states that nothing in this Sanhita shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.  
• This section does not confer any inherent power on the High Courts, and it only recognizes the fact that High Courts have inherent powers.  

Purpose:  

• Section 528 of BNSS lays down as to when the inherent power may be exercised.  
• It enumerates three purposes for which the inherent power may be exercised:  
  • to make orders necessary to give effect to any order under the Code.  
  • to prevent abuse of the process of any court.  
  • to secure the ends of justice. 

What is Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023(BNS)? 

Section 498A of IPC 

• Section 498A of IPC used to deal with the same provision. 

Section 85 of BNS 

• Section 85 of BNS deals with Enticing or taking away or detaining with criminal intent a married woman. 
• It states that Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. 

Definition of Cruelty 

• For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means— 
  • This is defined under Section 86 of BNS as: 
    • Any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or 
    • Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. 

What are the Landmark Judgements Based on Powers of High Court to Quash the Proceedings? 

• Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State [NCT of Delhi] (2018): 
  • In this case the Court held that the High Court has the power to interfere in the proceedings and quash the FIR against the accused even after filing the chargesheet. 
• Jitha Sanjay and Others v. State of Kerala and Other (2023) 
  • The Kerela High Court in the present case highlighted that courts can quash criminal proceedings if they are found to be vexatious, frivolous, or motivated by an ulterior motive, even if the FIR contains false allegations of an offense. The court observed that complainants with extraneous motives can craft FIRs to include necessary ingredients. 
• Sh. Anupam Gahoi v. State (Govt. of NCT Of Delhi) And Anr (2024): 
  • The Delhi High Court recently quashed a matrimonial case where a husband had sought to invalidate an FIR filed by his wife in 2018 under the CrPC and BNSS. 
• Mama Shailesh Chandra v. State of Uttarakhand (2024): 
  • In this case it was held that even if the charge sheet had been filed, the Court could still examine if offences alleged to have been committed were prima facie made out or not based on the FIR, charge sheet and other document.