Prosecution of Wife for Harbouring Her Husband Despite Express Exception Under Section 212 IPC Is Abuse of Process: Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes FIR

Case Name: Phool Kali v. State of Punjab

Date of Judgment: 25 August 2026

Citation: CRM-M-39544-2021

Bench: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the express exception contained in Section 212 IPC protects a husband or wife from criminal liability for harbouring or concealing the other spouse. Since the petitioner was admittedly the wife of the principal accused, she could not be prosecuted under Section 212 IPC merely for allegedly sheltering her husband. The Court further held that Section 213 IPC was not attracted because there was no allegation that she had accepted, attempted to obtain or agreed to accept any gratification or consideration for concealing or screening the accused. Continuation of proceedings despite the statutory exception and the absence of essential ingredients of the alleged offences would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

Summary: The petitioner sought quashing of FIR No. 110 dated 7 June 2017, registered at Police Station Division No. 4, Ludhiana, for offences under Sections 212 and 213 IPC. The prosecution alleged that she had sheltered her husband, Ram Naresh, who was wanted in another FIR registered under Section 354 IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act, and had thereby assisted him in evading arrest. The petitioner contended that no material established any act of harbouring and, in any event, being the wife of the alleged offender, her case was expressly covered by the exception to Section 212 IPC. Examining the ingredients of harbouring, the Court observed that mere knowledge of an offender’s whereabouts is insufficient; there must be some positive assistance intended to help the offender evade apprehension. More importantly, the statutory exception categorically excludes harbouring or concealment by the offender’s spouse. The trial court had failed to consider this protection while taking cognizance and framing charges. As regards Section 213 IPC, the FIR contained no allegation whatsoever of gratification, consideration or restitution of property in return for concealing the offender. Consequently, even if the allegations were accepted in their entirety, the offences alleged against the petitioner were not made out.

Decision: The petition was allowed. Exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court quashed FIR No. 110 dated 7 June 2017 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom insofar as they concerned the petitioner. The Court concluded that there was no possibility of her conviction and that continuation of the prosecution would constitute an abuse of the process of law.