Summary
The Supreme Court quashed a chargesheet under various IPC sections against three appellants in a dispute between neighbours in an apartment building. The FIR attributed no specific act of assault to them. The CCTV footage that formed part of the chargesheet showed they arrived after the altercation and tried to calm it down. The High Court had also given no reason for refusing them the relief it granted to two co-accused.
Issues
- Whether the allegations in the FIR and the material collected, including CCTV footage forming part of the chargesheet, disclosed the ingredients of the offences alleged against the appellants.
- Whether the High Court erred in not considering the CCTV footage and in denying the appellants the relief granted to co-accused on the same allegations.
- Whether continuing the prosecution against the appellants would be an abuse of process.
Provisions considered
- Section 482 (Section 528, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The inherent power to prevent abuse of process was applied using the Bhajan Lal categories (1), (3) and (7) and the four-step test in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani; the Court found the material relied on by the accused, which was part of the prosecution's own record, displaced the allegations. (¶¶ 22, 23, 31, 32, 33, 34)
- Sections 143, 341, 323, 324, 504, 506, 509, 427 and 354, Indian Penal Code, 1860The offences in the chargesheet; the allegations and material did not prima facie disclose their ingredients against the appellants, and the chargesheet was quashed as regards them. (¶¶ 31, 36)
Held
- The FIR did not say which accused assaulted the complainant and his wife. Against the appellants, it alleged only that they came down during the incident and made threats; no specific act of physical assault or causing injury was attributed to them. (¶¶ 24, 25)
- The Court viewed the CCTV footage, which was collected in investigation and formed part of the chargesheet. It showed the appellants were not present when the assault took place, arrived afterwards, and tried to calm the situation. Such unrefuted material from the prosecution's own record can be relied on even at the quashing stage. (¶¶ 26, 27, 33)
- The High Court erred in not analysing the CCTV footage. It also gave no reason for quashing the proceedings against two co-accused while refusing the same relief to the appellants on the same allegations; that differential treatment was unsustainable. (¶¶ 28, 29)
- A Section 164 CrPC statement making general allegations, and one specific allegation contradicted by the CCTV footage, did not supply the missing specific roles. (¶ 30)
- The case fell within Bhajan Lal categories (1), (3) and (7). It also satisfied the four steps in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani: the material was sound and impeccable, it ruled out the accusations, it was unrefuted, and a trial would be an abuse of process. Given the prior disputes between the parties and the absence of specific overt acts, the appellants could not be made to face trial. (¶¶ 31, 32, 33, 34)
Result
Appeals allowed and the impugned High Court judgment set aside. The chargesheet arising from the FIR at Police Station Survey Park, pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, was quashed as regards the three appellants.