FIR against in-laws quashed where complaint disclosed no ingredients of the alleged offences.

The complainant lodged Crime No. 46/2020 at the Women’s Police Station, Mysuru, alleging offences under Sections 498A, 312, 313 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

The petitioners sought to quash the complaint and FIR under Section 482 CrPC.

Petitioner No. 1, the complainant’s father-in-law, died during the proceedings.

As to petitioners Nos. 2 and 3—the complainant’s mother-in-law and sister-in-law—the complaint alleged that the mother-in-law and her husband had said they would arrange a bride from their own community, and that the complainant transferred ₹42,572 to obtain an iPhone for the sister-in-law.

1. Whether the complaint disclosed the ingredients of the alleged IPC offences against petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 so as to warrant continuation of the investigation.

2. Whether the High Court could exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR at the investigation stage.

Section 482 CrPC empowers the High Court to quash proceedings where their continuation would amount to an abuse of process or result in a miscarriage of justice.

In applying that power, the Court must examine whether the complaint discloses the commission of an offence; as stated in Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2018) 3 SCC 104, an FIR should not be quashed where the complaint does disclose an offence.

The Court considered the alleged offences under Sections 498A, 312, 313 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC.

The Court examined the complaint’s specific allegations against petitioners Nos. 2 and 3, while acknowledging the principle in Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel.

It found that the allegations concerning the proposed bride from the mother-in-law’s community and the transfer of money for an iPhone did not disclose the ingredients of the charged offences against these petitioners.

The allegations concerning the offences under Sections 312, 313 and 506 were directed at the husband, and the complaint otherwise did not make out the alleged offences against petitioners Nos. 2 and 3.

Allowing the investigation against them to continue would therefore constitute an abuse of process.

The petition was allowed as to petitioners Nos. 2 and 3, and the FIR in Crime No. 46/2020 was quashed insofar as it concerned them.