Quashing of Criminal Proceedings Not Justified When Rival FIRs Exist: Allahabad High Court

Allegations in FIR Prima Facie Disclose Offense Under SC/ST Act – Matter Must Proceed to Trial - In a significant ruling Allahabad High Court dismissed a plea seeking quashing of criminal proceedings in a case involving allegations of caste-based abuse and assault. Justice Vikas Budhwar ruled that where cross-FIRs exist between rival factions, the matter involves disputed facts that must be adjudicated in trial.

The applicants, Om Prakash and two others, had moved the High Court invoking Section 482 of the CrPC, challenging the charge sheet, cognizance order, and entire criminal proceedings pending before the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Gorakhpur. The case arose from Case Crime No. 260/2023, registered under Sections 323, 504, and 307 IPC, along with Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The applicants argued that the FIR was lodged due to personal enmity, citing a long-standing dispute between the parties. They also pointed out that they had lodged a counter-FIR against the complainant’s faction under Sections 147, 323, 506, and 307 IPC for the same incident. The Court, however, rejected their plea, stating: "When two rival FIRs exist, the mere claim that the case is false cannot justify quashing of proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. The existence of cross-FIRs itself indicates that an incident did take place, requiring a trial to determine the facts."

"Prima Facie Case Under SC/ST Act Exists – No Grounds for Interference"
The applicants contended that no offense under the SC/ST Act was made out, as there was no public humiliation or caste-based insult. However, the High Court, after examining the FIR, concluded that the allegations prima facie satisfied the ingredients of Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. Rejecting the contention that caste-based abuse must occur in public to constitute an offense, the Court observed: "The law under the SC/ST Act does not require public presence as a mandatory ingredient in every case. The allegations in the FIR must be tested at trial, and at this stage, the case cannot be quashed merely on the basis of denial by the accused."

The Court relied on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, which laid down the principles for quashing criminal proceedings. It reiterated that interference under Section 482 CrPC is justified only when the case is manifestly frivolous or amounts to an abuse of process.

"Revisional Power Cannot Be Used to Decide Disputed Facts"
The Court observed that the injuries sustained by both parties were recorded, further indicating that an incident had occurred. It noted that the presence of cross-FIRs ruled out the possibility of a fabricated case, stating: "A petition under Section 482 CrPC is not an alternative to trial. When facts are disputed and require examination of evidence, the correct forum is the trial court."

The Court also referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2021) 19 SCC 401, which held that courts must be cautious in quashing proceedings when serious allegations exist.

"Application Dismissed – Liberty to File Discharge Application Before Trial Court"
Dismissing the petition, the High Court refused to quash the proceedings, but granted the applicants the liberty to file a discharge application before the trial court. The Court directed:

"If the applicants move a discharge application, the trial court shall decide it expeditiously, strictly in accordance with law."

This ruling reinforces the principle that quashing of criminal proceedings is an exception, not the norm, and courts must ensure that cases involving serious allegations, particularly under the SC/ST Act, proceed to trial unless there is an overwhelming reason to interfere.
 

Date of Decision: 10 March 2025