Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Scope and ambit of – Commercial transaction – FIR against respondent no.2 and one more person u/ss.420, 406 and 34 IPC – High Court quashed all the criminal proceedings – On appeal, held: To exercise powers u/s.482, the complaint in its entirety shall have to be examined on the basis of the allegation made in the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet – At that stage, High Court not under an obligation to go into the matter or examine its correctness – Whatever appears on the face of the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet shall be taken into consideration without any critical examination of the same – In the present case, ingredients of the offences u/ss. 406 and 420, IPC cannot be said to be absent on the basis of the allegations in the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet – Sufficient material available to connect respondent no.2 in the commission of crime – High Court not justified in quashing the criminal proceedings – Penal Code, 1860- ss.420,
406 & 34.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
Held: 1.1 To exercise powers under Section 482 CrPC, the complaint in its entirety shall have to be examined on the basis of the allegation made in the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet and the High Court at that stage was not under an obligation to go into the matter or examine its correctness. Whatever appears on the face of the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet shall be taken into consideration without any critical examination of the same. The offence ought to appear ex facie on the complaint/FIR/chargesheet and other documentary evidence, if any, on record. [Para 23][588-D-E]
1.2 The exercise of inherent power of the High Court is an extraordinary power which has to be exercised with great care and circumspection before embarking to scrutinise the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet in deciding whether the case is the rarest of rare case, to scuttle the prosecution at its inception. Whether the allegations in the complaint were true is to be decided on the basis of the evidence led at the stage of trial. [Paras 28, 30][590F-G; 591-C] Nagpur Steel & Alloys Pvt. Ltd. v. P. Radhakrishna and Others 1997 SCC(Cri) 1073 – relied on.
1.3 In the matter of exercise of inherent power by the High Court, the only requirement is to see whether continuance of the proceedings would be a total abuse of the process of the Court. The Criminal Procedure Code contains a detailed procedure for investigation, framing of charge and trial, and in the event when the High Court is desirous of putting a halt to the known procedure of law, it must use proper circumspection with great care and caution to interfere in the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In the instant case, on a careful reading of the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet, it cannot be said that the complaint does not disclose the commission of an offence. The ingredients of the offences under Sections 406 and
420 IPC cannot be said to be absent on the basis of the allegations in the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet. Whether the allegations in the complaint are otherwise correct or not, has to be decided on the basis of the evidence to be led during the course of trial. Simply because there is a remedy provided for breach of contract or arbitral proceedings initiated at the instance of the appellants, that does not by itself clothe the court to come to a conclusion that civil remedy is the only remedy, and the initiation of criminal proceedings, in any manner, will be an abuse of the process of the court for exercising inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC for quashing such proceedings. This Court has perused the pleadings of the parties, the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet and orders of the Courts below and have taken into consideration the material on record. The issue involved in the matter under consideration is not a case in which the criminal trial should have been short-circuited. The High Court was not justified in quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. The High Court has primarily adverted on two circumstances, (i) that it was a case of termination of agreement to sell on account of an alleged breach of the contract and (ii) the fact that the arbitral proceedings have been initiated at the instance of the appellants. Both the alleged circumstances noticed by the High Court are unsustainable in law. The facts narrated in the present complaint/FIR/charge-sheet indeed reveal the commercial transaction but that is hardly a reason for holding that the offence of cheating would elude from such transaction. In fact, many a times, offence of cheating is committed in the course of commercial transactions and the illustrations have been set out under Sections 415, 418 and 420 IPC. So far as initiation of arbitral proceedings is concerned, there is no correlation with the criminal proceedings. That apart, the High Court has not even looked into the charge-sheet filed against 2nd respondent which was on record to reach at the conclusion that any criminal offence as stated is prima facie being made out and veracity of it indeed be examined in the course of criminal trial. [Paras 31-34][591-GH; 592-A-C; 592-D-G; 593-C-D]
Trisuns Chemical Industry v. Rajesh Agarwal and Ors. (1999) 8 SCC 686 : [1999] 2 Suppl. SCR 686 – relied on.
1.4 There was sufficient material available as manifests from the record of criminal proceedings to connect the 2 nd respondent in the commission of crime. The judgment of the High Court impugned dated 15th March, 2019 is hereby set aside. [Paras 36, 38][593-G-H; 594-C]
State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Others (1992) Suppl 1 SCC 335 : [1990] 3 Suppl. SCR 259 – relied on.
R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab [1960] 3 SCR 388; M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh & Anr. (2001) 8 SCC 645 : [2001] 4 Suppl. SCR 45; Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. (2011) 7 SCC 59 : [2011] 8 SCR 815; Arun Bhandari v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2013)
2 SCC 801 : [2013] 3 SCR 961; Anand Kumar Mohatta and Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi), Department of Home and Anr. (2019) 11 SCC 706 : [2018] 13 SCR 1028; Rajabhai Abdul Rehman Munshi v. Vasudev Dhanjibhai Mody [1964] 3 SCR 480; G. Narayanaswamy Reddy (Dead) by LRs. & Anr. v. Govt. of Karnataka and Anr. (1991) 3 SCC 261 : [1991] 2 SCR 563; G. Sagar Suri & Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors. (2000) 2 SCC 636 : [2000] 1 SCR 417; Murari Lal Gupta v. Gopi Singh (2005) 13 SCC 699; Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. and Ors. (2006) 6 SCC 736 : [2006] 3 Suppl. SCR 704; Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. (2009) 7 SCC 712 : [2009] 7 SCR 563; Chandran Ratnaswami v. K.C. Palanisamy and Ors. (2013) 6 SCC 740 : [2013] 17 SCR 853; VESA Holdings Private Limited and Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2015) 8 SCC 293 : [2015] 4 SCR 27; K. Subba Rao and Ors. v. State of Telangana Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Home & Ors. (2018) 14 SCC 452; Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra and Others 2020 SCC Online SC 964 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.