S. 482 CrPC/S. 528 BNSS | In Some FIR Quashing Pleas, High Court Must Appreciate Background In Which Case Was Filed : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Thursday (Sep. 18) cautioned High Courts against mechanically dismissing quashing petitions based solely on the contents of the FIR, stressing that the surrounding context and circumstances of its filing must also be taken into account in some cases. The Court added that the High Courts must also take into account whether the FIR was a result of a counterblast or a retaliatory measure filed with an oblique motive just to harass the litigant.

“While it is true that elaborate defences and evidence brought on record is not to be considered at this stage, it is equally true that a mechanical approach cannot be countenanced. What renders a judicial mind distinct is its application to the given facts in accordance with law. Therefore, the Court ought to have appreciated, at least to some extent, the background in which the respondent filed the subject FIR.”, the court said.

While referring to judgments such as CBI v. Aryan Singh and Rajeev Kourav v. Baisahab, the Court observed that at the S.482 CrPC stage, the High Court is only expected to look at the prima facie possibility of the offence. However, in some cases, the background also must be appreciated.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra criticized the Punjab & Haryana High Court for mechanically refusing to quash the FIR without applying its judicial mind to the surrounding circumstances. The High Court overlooked the context of the filing of the FIR and only relied upon the FIR content, stating that since allegations had been made and the investigation was at a preliminary stage, it was “too premature” to interfere.

The couple separated in June 2013, with the wife moving to Australia along with their child. In subsequent litigation, Australian courts repeatedly directed her to return the child to Australia under The Hague Convention, but she defied these orders. Meanwhile, in April 2016, an Australian court granted a divorce in favor of the husband.

Barely a month later, in May 2016, the wife lodged an FIR in Punjab alleging cruelty and dowry harassment throughout the marriage.

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Karol noted that the High Court failed to note that the Wife's FIR was a retaliatory measure and an abuse of process of law, filed just after a month of divorce decree granted in husband's favor.

“Here, the respondent filed the complaint after the grant of divorce, a month later. Granted that the same is not expressly prohibited by law, it certainly begs the question as to why despite having been separated from the appellant for almost three years to the date, did the respondent consider filing an application with the police at that relevant time. To entertain the possibility that the same is nothing but a counterblast to the fact that the appellant has two orders in his favour, one by the Courts in Austria ordering the respondent to bring the child back to Australia and the other, by the Courts in Australia, accepting the appellant's prayer for grant of divorce, does not appear far-fetched.”, the court said founding the Wife's FIR to be a counterblast against the husband.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal.

Related - S 482 CrPC - High Court Can Try To Read In Between The Lines While Considering Plea To Quash FIR : Supreme Court

When Accused Seeks To Quash FIR On Ground That It's Based On Personal Vengeance, Attendant Circumstances Must Be Looked Into : Supreme Court

Quashing Of FIR : Recent Supreme Court Judgments Lay Down Novel Approach (2023).

Cause Title: NITIN AHLUWALIA Versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 923

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Subash Bhat, Adv. Ms. Nikita Sharma, Adv. Ms. Lisha Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Anupam Raina, AOR Mr. Ankur Parihar, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Karan Sharma, AOR Ms. Charu Mathur, AOR