Vague allegations in FIR

FIR must contain all the material facts related to an offence. It also must contain all
the specific ingredient needed for satisfying an offence and material through which
investigation may proceed.
If a FIR misses material facts then it is a vague FIR which can be quashed by
invoking the jurisdiction of 482 CrPC. Image result for 498a quash Some believe
that if a FIR satisfies the ingredients of an offence it is not the case for being fit for
quashing but this preposition is untrue under the light of the judgement In R.P.
Kapur v. State of Punjab (AIR 1960 SC 866) the apex Court summarized some
categories of cases where inherent power can, and should be exercised to quash the
proceedings.
(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or
continuance e.g. want of sanction
(ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at its
face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged
(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence
adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. so
lack of evidence is another ground for quashing proceedings.
A FIR containing quite vague, general and sweeping, specifying no instances of
criminal conduct can be quashed even if the FIR constitutes and satisfy the
ingredients of an offence.
It is held in Vishalbhai Niranjanbhai Adatiya vs State Of Gujarat & on 9
December 2015 It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints
under section 498A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues
without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints
which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time,
rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a
matter of serious concern.
Geeta Mehrotra vs State
Supreme Court quashes FIR on ground Casual, wholesale reference to in-laws
wont justify dowry case.
Taking note of the increasing dowry-related complaints, the Supreme Court has
held that a casual reference to the names of family members of the husband in the
FIR filed by the wife without any allegation of their active involvement in the
offence will not justify a case against them.
There is a tendency to involve the entire household in a matrimonial dispute,
especially if it happens soon after the wedding. This has been borne out of
experience, said a Bench of Justices T.S. Thakur and Gyan Sudha Misra
Writing the judgment, Justice Misra said: If the FIR as it stands does not disclose
the specific allegation against the accused, more so against the co-accused,
specially in a matter arising out of matrimonial bickering, it would be clear abuse
of the legal and judicial process to mechanically send the accused named in the
FIR to undergo trial. Only if the FIR disclosed specific allegations would the
court be persuaded to take cognisance of the offence alleged against the relatives
of the main accused who are prima facie not found to have indulged in physical
and mental torture of the complainant-wife.
The Bench said: It is a well-settled principle laid down in cases too numerous to
mention that if the FIR did not disclose the commission of an offence, the court
would be justified in quashing the proceedings, [thus] preventing the abuse of the
process of law. Simultaneously, the courts are expected to adopt a cautious
approach in matters of quashing specially in cases of matrimonial dispute whether
the FIR in fact discloses commission of an offence by the relatives of the principal
accused or the FIR prima facie discloses a case of over-implication by involving
the entire family at the instance of the complainant, who is out to settle scores
arising out of the teething problem or skirmish of domestic bickering while settling
down in her new matrimonial surrounding.
In the instant case, Shipra Mehrotra of Allahabad was married to Shyamji Mehrotra
of Faridabad in Haryana in 2003. After few months, Shipra filed a complaint under
the Dowry Prohibition Act and the Indian Penal Code against her husband, parents-
in-law, sister-in-law Geeta Mehrotra and brother-in-law Ramji Mehrotra. Even as
these proceedings were pending in an Allahabad trial court, Shipra got an ex parte
decree for divorce.
Appellants Geeta and Ramji moved the Allahabad High Court for quashing the
case against them contending that the trial court had no jurisdiction to entertain the
complaint as the alleged dowry harassment happened in Faridabad. The High Court
refused to quash the complaint. .
Allowing the appeal against this order, the Supreme Court said there was only a
general allegation that Geeta and Ramji were also involved in physical and mental
torture of the complainant without mention of even a single incident against them.
Also, how they could be motivated to demand dowry when they were only related
as brother and sister of the complainants husband? The Bench set aside the
criminal proceedings against the two appellants and consequently the order
passed by the High Court shall stand overruled.

Vishalbhai Niranjanbhai Adatiya vs. State Of Gujarat & on 9 December 2015

It is held in a FIR containing quite vague, general and sweeping, specifying no
instances of criminal conduct can be quashed even if the FIR constitutes and
satisfy the ingredients of an offence. It is a matter of common experience that most
of these complaints under section 498A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment
over trivial issues without proper deliberations.