Holding

The Supreme Court held that the FIR does not constitute a prima facie case against the appellant and therefore quashed the criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC.

Summary

The appellant, Reshma Bano, sister of an accused in a kidnapping case, filed a writ petition under Section 482 of the CrPC and Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to quash criminal proceedings initiated against her on the basis of FIR No. 316 of 2007. The FIR merely noted that questioning the sister might be advantageous and did not allege any offence by her. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that a cognizable offence was made out. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, observing that the FIR placed the appellant only as a witness, with no material or overt act to constitute a prima facie case against her. Relying on the parameters laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the Court held that Section 482 can be exercised where the FIR does not disclose an offence against the person. Consequently, the proceedings against the appellant were quashed, though she may be examined as a witness.

Issues considered

Whether the FIR discloses a prima facie case of offence against the appellant, making her liable to criminal prosecution.
Whether the inherent power under Section 482 of the CrPC can be exercised to quash proceedings where the FIR does not constitute an offence against the person.
Whether the High Court erred in holding that a cognizable offence was made out from the FIR.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 155(2), s. 156(1), s. 482
Constitution of Indias. Article 226

Subjects

Section 482 CrPCquashing criminal proceedingsFIRprima facie casewitnesskidnappinginherent powers of courtBhajan Lal guidelines

Judgment

[2008] 3 S.C.R. 778

"(" ~

A RESHMA BANO '(

II.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 425 of 2008)
MARCH 3, 2008
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, P. SATHASIVAM ~

AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.] -"""
~

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 - Offence of
c kidnapping - Criminal proceedings based on FIR - Quashing
of, sought by appellant on the ground that she was sister of
accused - Held: The FIR only stated that questioning from
appellant would be advantageous and did not indicate
commission of any offence - Rather it put appellant in position
of witness - No material or a/legation of overt act on her part
D
made out - Proceedings relatable to FIR liable to be quashed
as no prima facie case made out.
, .~

In this appeal, the appellant has challehged the
judgment of High Court dismissing the application under
E s.482 Cr.P.C. and Art.226 of Constitution of India. The
prayer of appellant in the writ petition was to quash the
proceedings initiated against her on the basis of FIR as
she was only sister of main accused. The High Court
dismissed the application holding that on reading of the -f~ ..

F FIR, cognizable offence is made out. In the FIR, it was
stated that questioning from the sister of the boy might
be advantageous.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
Held: 1. The FIR does not indicate commission of any
G
offence rather puts the appellant in the position of a
witness. There is not even a scrap of material and not even
allegation of overt act. [Para 4] [780-D, E] .,,. '
2. The parameters where exercise of inherent power
H 778
RESHMA BANO v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & 779
ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

under s.482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised either on proof of A
abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the
ends of justice have been highlighted in several cases. In
*Bhajan Lal and Ors., it was held that though it will not be
· possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined
sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid B
formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of
cases wherein such power should be exercised, certain
illustrative cases were indicated such as where the
allegations made in the first information report or the
complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and c
accepted in their entirety do not prima facie con·stitute any
offence or make out a case against the accused. The case
at hand falls within this illustration given in *Bhajan Lal.
Therefore, the proceedings relatable to FIR are quashed
as far as the appellant is concerned. In other words, on
0
the basis of the existing materials the appellant shall not
be treated to be accused. It is, however, open to the
Investigating Ageocies to examine her as a witness.
[Paras 6, 8] [780-F, G; 781-A, B; 782-D, E]
*State ofHaryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors. 1992 E
Supp. (1) sec 335 - relied on
CRIMINALAPPELLATEJURISDICTION: CriminalAppeal
No. 425 of 2008.
From the final Judgment and Order dated 20.11.2007 of F
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal
Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 18621 of 2007.
M. Shoeb Auam, T.V. George and Anup Kumar for the
Appellant.
G
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division
Bench of Allahabad High Court dismissing the application filed H
780 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 3 S.C.R.

A by the appellant for exercise of power under Section 482 of the i •
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code') and ...
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the
'Constitution'). The prayer in the writ petition was to quash the
proceedings initiated on the basis of FIR Crime No.316 of2007,
B P.S. Phoolpur, Allahabad. It was submitted before the High Court
that the FIR did not disclose any offence so far as the appellant
is concerned. It was pointed out that the appellant was the sister _,.,
of'the accused no.1 Afzal who was alleged to have committed
the offence of kidnapping etc. The High Court dismissed the
c application holding that on reading of the FIR, cognizable offence
is made out.
3. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that the only reference made to the appellant in the
FIR reads as follows:
D
"Questioning from the sister of the boy, Smt. Resh ma Ba no,
might be advantageous''. )

4. This does not indicate commission of any offence rather
puts the appellant in the position of a witness. Even if it is
E conceded for the sake of arguments but not admitted that
commission of any cognizable offence is made out against
others, so far as the appellant is concerned, there is not even a
scarp of material and not even allegation of overt act.
5. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent in 1. '
F spite of service of notice.

6. The parameters where exercise of inherent power under
Section 482 of the Code can be exercised either on proof of
abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends
of justice have been highlighted in several cases. In State of
G
Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors. (1992 Supp. (1) SCC
335), it was held that though it will not be possible to lay down
any precise, clearly defined sufficiently channelized and inflexible -t- ,,_
guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of
myriad kinds of cases whE?rei~ such power should be exercised.
H
RESHMA BANO v. STATE OF UTIAR PRADESH & 781
ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
'I t '
.. certain illustrative cases were indicated. They are a~· f9llows:
. A
""" (1) Where the allegations made in the first information
report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their
face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima
· facie constitute any offence or make out a case
against the accused . B
• (2) Where the allegations in the first information report
~
and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do
not disclose a cognizabe offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) c
of the Code except under an· order of a Magistrate
~
within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the
FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support
of the same do not disclose the commission of any D
I' offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-
cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by
a police officer without an order of. a Magistrate as E
contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint
. ••• are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis
of which no prudent person can ever reach a just F
"
- ,,
conclusion that there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any
of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act
(under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to
the institution and continuance of the proceedings
and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code
--+ or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress
for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
782 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R.

( ..,
A (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended . y-
with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view
to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
B 7. A note of caution was indicated in the following words:
"103. We also give a note cf caution to the effect that the
•
~
power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be
exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that
c too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be
justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability
or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in
the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or
inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on
the court to act according to its whim or caprice."
D
8. The case at hand falls within the category I of the 7
illustrations given in Bhajan Lat's case (supra). Therefore, we
quash the proceedings relatable to FIR no.316 of 2007far as
the appellant is concerned. In other words, on the basis of the
E existing materials the appellant shall not be treated to be
accused. It is, however, open to the Investigating Agencies to
examine her as a witness. It is, further made clear that we have
quashed the proceedings vis-a-vis the appellant only on the
basis of the existing material. ... -
F 9. The appeal is allowed. •
...
D.G. Appeal allowed.

G

H