Chhattisgarh High Court quashes FIR after SIT found eight cases against family fabricated and noted police officer’s complicity

The petitioners invoked Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of Crime No. 58/2021 registered at Police Station Jarhagaon, District Mungeli, for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120-B and 212 IPC, together with Charge-sheet No. 77/2021, supplementary charge-sheet No. 77-A/2022, the order framing charges, and the consequential criminal proceedings pending as Criminal Case No. 796/2021 before the JMFC, Mungeli.

The petitioners alleged that the prosecution formed part of a series of criminal cases initiated after petitioner No. 2 ended her relationship with respondent No. 10, Piyush Tiwari, and married petitioner No. 1.

The State authorities constituted a Special Investigation Team to examine the series of cases.

According to the State’s affidavit, the SIT concluded that all eight offences registered against the petitioners were fabricated and recorded the complicity of respondent No. 3, a senior police officer, in the registration of offences in Mungeli and Bemetara.

Whether the continuation of the criminal proceedings arising from Crime No. 58/2021 constituted an abuse of the process of law and warranted exercise of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC?

Whether the cumulative effect of the repeated prosecutions, commonality of accused persons and complainants’ connections, closure/stay of connected proceedings, and the subsequent SIT findings established that the prosecution was manifestly mala fide and instituted with an ulterior motive?

Whether the FIR and charge-sheet could be quashed despite the objection that the SIT report was not a binding adjudication and that evaluation of disputed facts was impermissible under Section 482 CrPC?

The Court applied Section 482 CrPC, which preserves the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of any court and to secure the ends of justice.

It relied on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, particularly the illustrative category permitting quashing where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide or maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance arising from a private or personal grudge.

Ordinarily, the Section 482 jurisdiction does not permit a mini-trial, detailed appreciation of evidence, or adjudication of disputed questions of fact; however, the filing of a charge-sheet does not bar quashing where subsequent material of substantial and official character demonstrates that continuation of the prosecution would cause manifest injustice.

A subsequent administrative or investigative report is not conclusive judicial adjudication, but may be considered with other circumstances in determining whether continuation of proceedings amounts to abuse of process.

The Court held that respondent No. 11’s status as respondent No. 10’s driver, considered alone, could not establish that he acted as a proxy or lodged a false complaint.

However, the Court assessed that circumstance cumulatively with the repeated implication of substantially the same family members, the sequence of related FIRs, the repeated arrests, the association of successive complainants with respondent No. 10, and the closure or stay of several connected proceedings.

Crucially, the State’s own affidavit placed before the Court the SIT’s finding that all eight cases were fabricated, its recording of respondent No. 3’s complicity, and the recommendation for disciplinary proceedings against police officials.

The Court did not treat the SIT report as binding proof against respondent No. 11 or determine the truth of every FIR allegation.

Rather, it treated the report as official subsequent material directly connected with the same series of prosecutions and relevant to their bona fides.

On the cumulative assessment, the Court found that compelling the petitioners to undergo trial would permit continuation of a prosecution materially undermined by official findings of fabrication and would therefore amount to abuse of process.

It held that the prosecution arising from Crime No. 58/2021 was manifestly mala fide and that its continuation would constitute an abuse of the process of the Court under the principles stated in Bhajan Lal.

Accordingly, Crime No. 58/2021, registered at Police Station Jarhagaon, District Mungeli, the related charge-sheets, the order framing charges, and the entire consequential criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 796/2021 pending before the JMFC, Mungeli, were quashed and set aside.

The petitioners were granted liberty to approach the appropriate forum regarding their other reliefs, including disciplinary action and compensation.