Karnataka HC Quashes Husband’s FIR Against Wife As Vengeful Counterblast After Her Harassment Case Led To A Charge Sheet Against Him

The petitioner, wife of respondent No. 2, had earlier complained to police that he physically and mentally harassed her; a charge sheet was filed against him in that case.

Respondent No. 2 later alleged that, on 20 October 2023, the petitioner obstructed his car, opened its door and attempted to take the car key, causing an injury to his left hand. He lodged a complaint the following day, and police registered Crime No. 266/2023 for offences under Sections 506, 341, 504 and 324 of the IPC. The petitioner sought to quash the FIR under Section 482 CrPC, contending that it was a retaliatory counterblast to her complaint.

Section 482 CrPC empowers the High Court to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

Under State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, proceedings may be quashed, among other circumstances, where the allegations do not prima facie constitute an offence, are inherently improbable, or are manifestly mala fide and instituted to wreak vengeance.

The Court relied on Mohammed Ali v. State of U.P., 2023 (15) SCC 488, for the proposition that, when mala fides or vengeance are alleged, the Court may examine the FIR alongside the surrounding circumstances and materials on record.

It also referred to State of Andhra Pradesh v. Golconda Linga Swamy, (2004) 6 SCC 522, and R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, on the power to quash proceedings where no offence is disclosed or the proceedings amount to abuse of process.

The Court noted that a charge sheet had already been filed against respondent No. 2 on the petitioner’s complaint alleging harassment.

It also observed that the alleged incident occurred on 20 October 2023, while respondent No. 2 lodged his complaint the following day. Considering those circumstances together, the Court accepted the petitioner’s contention that the FIR was a counterblast instituted to wreak vengeance. Applying the principles in Bhajan Lal and Mohammed Ali, it concluded that continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of process.