SUMMARY ARGUMENTS

1.Whether the case is valid or the FIR should be quashed u/s 482 of
criminal procedure 1973?
The landmark case of State of Haryana and Ors. Vs Bhajan Lal and Ors.,[9] the Hon’ble
Supreme Court laid down the categories of cases where the inherent powers under Section
482 could be exercised for quashing of an FIR-

When the allegations in the FIR or complaint, even if accepted at face value, do not
constitute any offense, or make a case against the accused.

When the allegations in the FIR and accompanying materials do not disclose a cognizable
offense that justifies investigation by the police under Section 156(1) of the Criminal
Procedure Code (CrPC) without an order from a Magistrate under Section 155(2) of the
CrPC.

When the allegations in the FIR and supporting evidence do not reveal the commission of
any offense or make a case against the accused.

When the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offense but only a non-
cognizable offense, in which case no investigation by a police officer is permitted without a
Magistrate’s order under Section 155(2) of the CrPC.

When the allegations in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable that
no reasonable person could conclude that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against
the accused.

When there is a specific legal provision in the CrPC or the relevant Act that bars the
institution or continuation of criminal proceedings, or when there is an alternative legal
remedy available to address the aggrieved party’s grievance.

When a criminal proceeding is clearly motivated by malice or ulterior motives, such as

personal grudges, rather than a genuine pursuit of justice.

In a more recent case in the year of 2017, the Hon’ble Supreme Court referring to the
Bhajan Lal Judgement laid down the guidelines to be followed by the High Courts under
Section 482 which are summarised as follows[10]–

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not grant new powers to the High
Court but rather preserves its inherent powers to prevent abuse of court processes and
ensure justice.

Section 482 can be used to quash even non-compoundable offences.

It is the duty of the High Court evaluate whether quashing a criminal proceeding serves the
interests of justice.

The inherent power of the High Court must be exercised:

To secure the ends of justice.

To prevent abuse of the process of any court.

No principles can be formulated on whether a complaint or FIR should be quashed based

on settlement of the dispute as it depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.

Serious offences like murder, rape, and dacoity cannot be quashed, even if the victim and
offender have settled, due to their impact on society.

Misuse of Section 482

Misuse to Scuttle Investigation or Prosecution: Some accused individuals file petitions

under Section 482 with the primary intention of delaying or obstructing the ongoing
investigation or prosecution against them. They may seek to use this provision to halt the
legal process, even if there are valid reasons for the investigation or prosecution.[11]

Misuse to Bypass Statutory Remedies: Another misuse of Section 482 occurs when
accused persons approach the High Court seeking the quashing of an FIR or charge sheet
without first availing themselves of the statutory remedies available under the Criminal
Procedure Code (CrPC), such as applying for anticipatory bail[12] or regular bail.[13]

Misuse to Seek Interim Stay on Proceedings: In some cases, individuals misuse Section
482 by requesting an interim stay on legal proceedings, particularly when they are unable
to obtain such a stay from lower courts.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned that the inherent powers under Section 482
should be exercised sparingly and with great caution, and that the power should not be
used as an alternative to the statutory remedies available to the parties. The court has also
held that the inherent powers should not be used to interfere with the jurisdiction of the
lower courts or to scuttle a fair investigation or prosecution. In conclusion, while the
inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC are wide and discretionary, they must be
exercised judiciously and with great caution.

2. Whether the accused is liable u/s 376 ipc or not?

Determine whether the accused is liable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)
or not, the prosecution may present the following arguments:
Sexual Intercourse: The prosecution may argue that the accused engaged in sexual
intercourse with the victim without her consent, which is a key element of the offense
under Section 376 IPC.

Lack of Consent: The prosecution may present evidence to show that the victim did not
consent to the sexual act or was incapable of giving consent due to reasons such as
intoxication, fear, or coercion.

Age of the Victim: If the victim is a minor, the prosecution may argue that the accused
committed the offense of rape under Section 376 IPC as sexual intercourse with a minor is
considered rape even if the minor appears to have consented.

Injury or Force: The prosecution may highlight any injuries on the victim’s body or use of
force by the accused to establish lack of consent and prove the offense under Section 376
IPC.

Circumstantial Evidence: The prosecution may rely on circumstantial evidence such as

witness testimonies, medical reports, and any other relevant evidence to prove the guilt of
the accused under Section 376 IPC.

These are some of the arguments that the prosecution may present to establish the
accused’s liability under Section 376 IPC.

Conclusion and Summary of Findings

73 For the above reasons we have come to the conclusion that the conviction under
Section 376(1) and the sentence imposed by the Sessions Judge must be affirmed. In the
circumstances we order as follows:

(i) The conviction of the appellant for an offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC and
ST Act and the sentence imposed in respect of the offence is set aside and the
appeal allowed to that extent; and
(ii) The conviction of the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 376(1)
of the Penal Code and the sentence of imprisonment for life is upheld. The fine
of Rs 1,000/- and default imprisonment of six months imposed by the Sessions
Judge and affirmed by the High Court shall also stand confirmed.

3. Whether the accused is liable u/s 354A,C,D IPC or not,

To determine whether the accused is liable under sections 354A, 354C, or 354D of the
Indian Penal Code (IPC), we would need specific details about the incident and the
elements of each section. Here’s a brief overview of these sections:
Section 354A IPC: Deals with sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment.

Section 354C IPC: Pertains to voyeurism and punishment for voyeurism.

Section 354D IPC: Addresses stalking and punishment for stalking.

Each of these sections has specific elements that need to be proven to establish liability.
Factors such as the nature of the act, the intention of the accused, and the circumstances
surrounding the incident play crucial roles in determining guilt or innocence.

If you provide more details about the case or the specific circumstances under which these
sections are being considered, I can offer more tailored information or guidance.

4. Whether the accused is liable u/s 66A r/w, 66C, 66E IT act?
Section 66A of the Act criminalizes the sending of offensive messages through a computer
or other communication devices. Under this provision, any person who by means of a
computer or communication device sends any information that is:

Grossly offensive;

False and meant for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger,
obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will;

Meant to deceive or mislead the recipient about the origin of such messages, etc, shall be
punishable with imprisonment up to three years and with fine.

Over the past few years, incidents related to comments, sharing of information, or
thoughts expressed by an individual to a wider audience on the internet have attracted
criminal penalties under Section 66(A). This has led to discussion and debate on the ambit
of the Section and its applicability to such actions.

Despite the 2019 order from the Court, s 66A continues to be used to file FIRs and make
arrests across the country. No amendment has been enacted to remove it from the IT Act.

PUCL has filed the present petition as a Miscellaneous Application in the Shreya Singhal
case. It seeks further directions from the Court to ensure that s 66A is not used to make
unconstitutional arrests.

On 14 July, the Ministry of Home Affairs issued an advisory to States and Union Territories
to direct all police stations not to register cases under the ‘repealed’ s 66A.