Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Savita Manish Chaudhari, filed a criminal application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking quashing of FIR No. 212 of 2015 registered at Washi Police Station for offences under Sections 450 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and the resultant Sessions Case No. 15 of 2016 pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhoom, District Osmanabad. The applicant was the wife of respondent No. 2, Manish Dnyandeo Choudhari, and the mother of two children. The FIR was lodged by respondent No. 2 alleging that on 09-12-2015, when he, his father, and sister were away at work, the applicant poured kerosene on him and attempted to set him on fire, but he escaped. The applicant contended that the allegations were false and motivated by matrimonial discord, and that she had no criminal intent. The State of Maharashtra and respondent No. 2 opposed the application. The High Court examined the FIR and the charge-sheet material and found that the allegations did not disclose any overt act by the applicant that could constitute an attempt to murder or house-trespass. The court noted that the applicant was a family member residing in the same house, and there was no evidence of any intention to commit murder or lurking house-trespass. The court held that the continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law and quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Inherent Powers - Section 482 CrPC - Quashing of FIR - The High Court can exercise inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings if the allegations do not disclose a prima facie offence or are frivolous/vexatious. - Held that the FIR against the applicant-wife for offences under Sections 450 and 307 IPC was liable to be quashed as the allegations did not make out any criminal intent or overt act on her part. (Paras 1-10) B) Indian Penal Code - Attempt to Murder - Section 307 IPC - Ingredients - For an offence under Section 307 IPC, there must be an act done with intent or knowledge to cause death, and the act must be capable of causing death in the ordinary course of nature. - Held that the mere presence of the applicant at the scene and her alleged act of pouring kerosene on the victim, without any further overt act or evidence of intent, did not constitute an attempt to murder. (Paras 5-8) C) Indian Penal Code - House Trespass - Section 450 IPC - Ingredients - The offence of lurking house-trespass or house-breaking in order to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment for life requires an intention to commit an offence. - Held that the applicant, being a family member residing in the same house, could not be said to have committed lurking house-trespass, and there was no evidence of any intention to commit an offence. (Paras 5-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the FIR and criminal proceedings against the applicant-wife for offences under Sections 450 and 307 IPC should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC for lack of prima facie evidence and criminal intent.
Final Decision
The application is allowed. FIR No. 212/2015 and Sessions Case No. 15/2016 are quashed and set aside.
Law Points
- Inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC
- Quashing of FIR
- Prima facie case
- Criminal intent
- Section 307 IPC
- Section 450 IPC
