Court’s decision
The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR registered for offences under the Indian Penal Code arising out of an alleged assault on an advocate immediately after court proceedings. The Court categorically held that the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be invoked to conduct a mini trial or to test the veracity of evidence collected during investigation.
The Court noted that the investigation was complete, witness statements had been recorded, medical evidence was available, and the charge-sheet was ready to be filed. In such circumstances, the Court held that it would be wholly inappropriate to interdict criminal proceedings at the threshold. Relying on recent Supreme Court precedents, the Court relegated the Petitioner to the statutory remedy of filing a discharge application before the trial court. The interim protection operating since 2021 was also refused to be extended.
Facts
The FIR arose from an incident that allegedly took place outside the City Civil Court premises after conclusion of a civil hearing. The complainant, an advocate, had appeared in a civil suit seeking an injunction against certain individuals and activists following threats allegedly made to a private company. An ex-parte order of injunction had been granted in the civil proceedings.
According to the FIR, after the court proceedings concluded, the complainant was accosted by unknown persons who questioned him about the injunction order and thereafter assaulted him with fists and kicks. The FIR further alleged that the Petitioner, along with other unidentified persons acting with common intention, wrongfully restrained, abused, and assaulted the complainant. On this basis, offences relating to wrongful restraint, voluntarily causing hurt, criminal intimidation, intentional insult, and common intention were invoked.
Issues
The principal issue before the High Court was whether the FIR and criminal proceedings deserved to be quashed at the threshold on the ground that no cognizable offence was disclosed against the Petitioner. The Court also examined whether, once investigation was complete and the charge-sheet was ready, it would be proper for the High Court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to evaluate the sufficiency of evidence or the defence raised by the accused.
An ancillary issue was whether the existence of CCTV footage, witness statements, and injury certificates could be ignored at the quashing stage, and whether the Petitioner could bypass the statutory remedy of discharge available before the trial court.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The Petitioner contended that the FIR did not attribute any specific overt act to him and that his name was dragged in without any direct role in the alleged assault. It was argued that mere presence at or near the spot could not constitute a criminal offence and that the FIR failed to disclose the basic ingredients of the offences alleged.
It was further contended that subsequent statements recorded during investigation could not cure the fundamental defect in the FIR. The Petitioner asserted that the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law and that the High Court ought to exercise its powers to prevent unnecessary prosecution where the allegations were vague and motivated.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State opposed the petition contending that a clear prima facie case was made out against the Petitioner. It was submitted that investigation had revealed material implicating the Petitioner, including statements of advocates who were present near the court premises and CCTV footage showing the Petitioner attempting to leave the spot in his vehicle.
The State further submitted that the complainant had suffered injuries, which were medically certified, and that the investigation was complete with the charge-sheet ready to be filed. It was argued that at this stage, the High Court could not assess credibility or weigh evidence, and that the Petitioner must raise all his defences before the trial court in accordance with law.
Analysis of the law
The Court analysed the well-settled limits on the exercise of inherent and writ jurisdiction in criminal matters. It reiterated that the power to quash criminal proceedings is to be exercised sparingly and only in cases where, even if the allegations are taken at face value, no offence is made out.
The Court emphasised that once investigation is complete, the role of evaluating evidence shifts squarely to the trial court. High Courts are not expected to examine contradictions, omissions, or the probative value of materials at the quashing stage. The existence of an alternative statutory remedy, particularly a discharge application, is a relevant consideration militating against exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction.
Precedent Analysis
The Bench placed strong reliance on recent Supreme Court decisions clarifying the scope of interference at the pre-trial stage. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that High Courts cannot conduct a mini trial while dealing with petitions for quashing of FIRs or criminal proceedings.
The Court relied on authoritative pronouncements holding that where investigation is complete and the charge-sheet is ready, the accused should ordinarily be relegated to the remedy of discharge. Even where allegations may appear weak or unconvincing, the trial court alone is competent to examine the materials collected by the investigating agency and determine whether charges should be framed.
Court’s Reasoning
Applying these principles, the High Court found that the FIR, read along with investigation papers, disclosed a prima facie case against the Petitioner. The allegations indicated that the complainant advocate was allegedly assaulted in connection with his professional role in obtaining an injunction order, a factor that weighed with the Court.
The Court observed that the Petitioner’s contentions amounted to a defence which could only be adjudicated after appreciation of evidence. Entering into such an exercise would require the Court to assess CCTV footage, witness credibility, and factual disputes, which is impermissible at the quashing stage. The Court therefore declined to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 or Section 482.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court held that no case was made out for quashing the FIR or criminal proceedings. The petition was dismissed, and the Petitioner was relegated to avail the remedy of discharge before the competent trial court. The Court also refused to extend interim protection, noting the prolonged pendency of the petition and the need to allow criminal law to take its course.
Implications
This judgment reinforces judicial discipline in criminal proceedings by reiterating that High Courts are not forums for pre-trial adjudication of factual disputes. It underscores that quashing jurisdiction is exceptional and cannot be invoked to short-circuit prosecution once investigation is complete. The ruling also sends a strong message on protection of advocates and court processes, indicating that allegations of assault connected with court proceedings will be scrutinised through a full trial rather than prematurely terminated.
