My wife has filed three cases against me and my family members in different sections of IPC as well as under the Domestic Violence Act. She has filed a divorce case against me in district Ajmer so as to mount pressure upon me. In the meantime, I have filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights before the family court Jaipur.
Thereupon she filed a criminal case under section 498-A/323/506/377/511 IPC before session court Rohini, New Delhi and maintenance case under section 125 crpc before the Magistrate court Ajmer. We have reached a conclusion that we should settle our disputes out of the court, hence, our disputes have settled. Finally, I want to know what procedure should I adopt to settle these cases?
The High Court may quash the lame proceeding under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure in order to secure ends of justice. The High Court may quash the Fir when.
- FIR discloses no specific allegation against the accused towards the commission of the cognizable offence.
- FIR contains bald allegation against the accused so as to prove the commission of the cognizable offence.
- Informant wants to harass the accused therefore abused the process of law by filing a false FIR.
The state of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; if the allegation in the FIR does not disclose any offence against the accused then the court may quash the FIR. FIR is a piece of information about a cognizable offence and given to the nearest officer in charge of the police station with the purpose to initiate an investigation. Therefore, FIR should disclose the ingredients of the alleged offence.
The police officer cannot initiate an investigation unless the FIR discloses commission of the cognizable offence. In case the FIR discloses commission of non-cognizable offence then police officer shall initiate investigation only after taking permission of the Magistrate under section 155 (2) CrPC.
The supreme court has opined that the High Court should exercise its power under Section 482 CrPC very sparingly and cautiously so as to:
- Secure the ends of justice
- Prevent the abuse of process of the court.
In your case, the allegation made in FIR is absurd and improbable because no prudent person can reach a conclusion that a person can commit offence only by standing near the bike.
