Gujarat HC quashes molestation FIR, finding complainant’s plan to catch the accused in a “trap” implausible

The complainant alleged that the petitioner, her neighbour, had harassed her over approximately three months and, on 25 February 2016, made unwanted advances, threatened her and grabbed her feet at her home.

She stated that she had told her husband beforehand that the petitioner would visit, and that her husband returned during the incident; the petitioner allegedly fled, leaving his mobile phone behind.

The police registered an FIR under Sections 354 and 114 of the IPC, filed a chargesheet on 25 April 2016, and Criminal Case No. 2838 of 2016 followed. The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR, chargesheet and consequential proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.

Whether the FIR and materials collected during investigation warranted quashing under Section 482 CrPC as an abuse of process, on the ground that the allegations were inherently improbable and mala fide

Whether the allegations, considered in the circumstances described in the FIR, justified allowing the prosecution under Sections 354 and 114 IPC to proceed

Section 482 CrPC preserves the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of court and secure the ends of justice; that power is to be exercised sparingly, but may be used where proceedings are manifestly tainted by mala fides or are inherently improbable.

Relying on Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P., (2023) 15 SCC 488, the Court stated that, where an FIR is alleged to be frivolous, vexatious or motivated by vengeance, the court may look beyond its averments to relevant attending circumstances and investigation materials.

The Court also invoked the categories in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, concerning quashing where continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process.

The Court considered the complainant’s account of prolonged harassment alongside her explanation for not informing her husband earlier and her statement that she had later arranged for her husband to be present when the petitioner was expected.

It found the alleged plan to catch the petitioner red-handed, rather than seek assistance from family or law enforcement, unnatural and inconsistent with the explanation for her earlier silence.

It accepted the petitioner’s contention that the narrative was an afterthought following an unexpected encounter, and concluded that the FIR’s foundational account lacked inherent probability. In the Court’s view, requiring the petitioner to face trial in those circumstances would constitute an abuse of process.

It allowed the petition and quashed the FIR, the chargesheet dated 25 April 2016, and all consequential proceedings, including Criminal Case No. 2838 of 2016; Rule was made absolute.