The High Court can quash an FIR, criminal proceedings or investigation with an aim to ensure justice and prevent abuse of legal proceedings (but it is exercised only when no other remedy is available to the litigant and not where a specific remedy is provided by a statute.)
Mrs. Baja had filed an FIR but no investigation took place. She had to approach the Judicial Magistrate who ordered investigation. Besides this Mr. Gill approached the High court.
Section 482 is under chapter 37 of CrPC, 1973 which is titled, Miscellaneous and it deals with the inherent powers of the court. This law gives wide powers to the high courts to quash an FIR, criminal proceedings or investigation with an aim to meet the ends of justice and prevent abuse of legal proceedings.
The Honorable High courts in India have wide powers under section 482 of CrPC. The high court under section 482 can quash an FIR even after the filing of the charge sheet by the prosecution. The accused can reason that there is no material evidence against him or that there is inherent improbability of the entire facts and materials collected against him in the charge sheet.
Other factors on which the court can quash an FIR is based on compromises between parties. Like matrimonial cases or others. That is also possible between parties on a financial dispute, when parties resort to a compromise deed.
In the instance when the matter has been resolved or compromised amicably, the Hon’ble High court must understand the gravity of the case to decide on the quashing of the FIR. The court should not quash FIRs when the matter has an overriding principle of Public Interest’ for example in cases of rape, murder, dacoit, etc..(10 points for quashing FIR by Honorable Supreme Court of India
According to the Black’s law dictionary, quash means to overthrow or abate or vacate or make void. Therefore to quash a criminal proceeding means to put an end to that legal machinery which was set into motion by filing of an FIR or a complaint.
The High court quashed the complaint on Mr. Gill before the Chief Judicial magistrate under section 95 on the reason that it was a trivial offence and not worthy of any prosecution. But in was not justified in the Veeda Menezes v. Yusuf Khan case where the court said an assault cannot be trivialized if the harm is caused by doing an act with intent to cause harm or with knowledge that h
arm may be caused.
The Supreme Court ruled that the offence
of outraging the modesty of a women (Mrs. Bajaj) was indeed committed under sec 354 and 509 of IPC.
It is established by State of Punjab v. Major Singh that any act committed on a women which is suggestive of sex would fall under the definition of outraging her modesty. For the modesty to be outraged there are two main ingredients present which are first the act itself and second, the culpable intentions. The act of slapping a woman on the posterior amounts to outraging of her modesty and it includes both these ingredients. The main ingredient of Sec. 354 of IPC is culpable intention’ was said to be possessed by Mr. Gill.