Quashing of FIR under BNSS

« »

The Delhi High Court in Sh. Anupam Gahoi v. State (Govt. of NCT Of Delhi) And Anr. recently quashed a matrimonial case where a husband had sought to invalidate an FIR filed by his wife in 2018 under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (BNSS).

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani ruled that despite the husband's petition being filed after July 1, 2023, under the BNSS, it would be treated under CrPC provisions due to ongoing proceedings.
The decision followed a settlement between the parties, mediated through family court, leading to the dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent and transfer of property as per settlement terms, thereby rendering the FIR unnecessary and quashed.

An FIR was registered on 27th February 2018 against the petitioner (husband) by complainant (wife), who is respondent No. 2 under sections 498-A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
The couple had two children, aged about 17 and 19 years.
On 15th March 2021, the parties settled through mediation at the Family Courts.
A divorce decree was granted on 20th April 2022 dissolving their marriage by mutual consent.
The petitioner (husband) filed this petition seeking quashing of the FIR under Section 482 of CrPC.

The court noted that the petition was filed under CrPC after 1st July, 2024,BNSS came into effect.
It observed that as per Section 531(2)(a) of BNSS, only proceedings pending before July 1, 2024 were to be continued under CrPC. New petitions should be filed under BNSS.
The court interpreted that Parliament's intention in drafting Section 531 of BNSS was to avoid disrupting ongoing proceedings by changing the governing law mid-way.
- To avoid unnecessary delay, the court treated the petition as one filed under Section 482 CrPC read with Section 528 of BNSS.
The court took note of the Settlement Deed dated 15th March 2021 reached through mediation and the Divorce Decree dated 20th April 2022.
- It verified that no appeal had been filed against the divorce decree.
- The court took note that the State had no objection to quashing the FIR.
Citing Supreme Court precedents (Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab), the court saw no reason not to quash the FIR.
It observed that continuing with the FIR and related proceedings would be futile and not conducive to peace between the parties, given their settlement.
The court clarified that quashing the FIR would not affect the legal rights of the children in relation to their father.

About:
- This Section deals with the saving of inherent powers of the High Court. It states that nothing in this Code 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.

About:
- Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) deals with the calling for records to exercise powers of revision.
- This Section deals with the saving of inherent powers of the High Court. It states that nothing in this Code 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 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.

Section 528 of BNSS and Bail Provisions:

The inherent power under Section 528 of BNSS cannot be used by the High Court to reopen or alter an order, after disposing a bail petition decided on merits.
Bail cannot be granted by virtue of Section 528 CrPC.
If bail is granted for a bailable offense, there is no provision in CrPC to cancel it. However, the High Court can cancel it by invoking inherent power on the grounds of tampering with the witness, bribing the officials, or an attempt to abscond etc.

Section 528 of BNSS (Earlier 482 of CrPC) and Quashing of the Proceedings

R.P. Kapoor v. State of Punjab (1960), the Supreme Court ruled that in the following cases the inherent jurisdiction of High Court could be exercised to quash the proceedings:
- Where there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of proceedings.
- Where the allegations in the FIR or complaint do not constitute the offence alleged.
- Where either there is no legal evidence adduced in support of the charge or the evidence adduced clearly failed to prove the charge.

In the case of M/s Pepsi Food Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate (1998), the Supreme Court held that a fresh investigation or re-investigation after filing of chargesheet by police can be ordered by High Court under Section 482 of CrPC to secure the ends of justice.
In the case of Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P and Ors. (2008), the Supreme Court cautioned against entertaining Section 482 CrPC petitions if the FIR remains unregistered, advocating for the pursuit of alternative remedies like approaching police officers or the Magistrate.
In the case of Bhisham Lal Verma v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.,(2023), the Supreme Court held that a second petition under Section 482 of CrPC would not be maintainable on grounds that were available for challenge at the time of filing of the first petition.