Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 482 – Quashing of criminal proceedings – Sustainability of – On facts, FIRs u/ss. 406 and 420 IPC – Allegations relating to disappearance of trucks loaded with beer from highways – High Court quashed the criminal proceedings arising out of the FIR including the charge-sheet filed by the Investigating Agency as well as the summoning order passed by the trial court – On appeal, held: High Court virtually conducted a mini trial, which was not permissible at this stage – At the stage of deciding the application u/s. 482, the High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considered – Overall allegations are disappearance of the trucks transporting the beer/contraband goods which are subject to the rules and regulations of the Excise Department and Excise Law – High Court quashed the criminal proceedings by observing that there was no loss to the Excise Department – High Court did not appreciate and/or consider the allegations of a larger conspiracy, and that both the FIRs are interconnected and part of the main conspiracy which is very serious if found to be true – Thus, the High Court exceeded in its jurisdiction – Judgment and order passed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings is unsustainable, and thus, quashed and set aside.
Judgment/Order: Pronouncement of – Speedy disposal – Need for – High Court delivered the judgment after a period of six months from the date it was reserved for judgment – Held: It is always prudent that the High Court delivers the judgment at the earliest after the arguments are concluded and the judgment is reserved. Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court by which the High Court set ORS.
aside the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR bearing Case Crime No. 260 including the charge-sheet filed by the Investigating Agency as well as the summoning order passed by the trial court, in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it appears that the High Court virtually conducted a mini trial, which as such is not permissible at this stage and while deciding the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of powers under Section
482 Cr.P.C. jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considered. [Para 7][782-F-H]
1.2 Even the High Court itself has opined that the allegations are very serious and it requires further investigation and that is why the High Court has directed to conduct the investigation by CB-CID with respect to the FIR No. 227 of 2019. However, while directing the CB-CID to conduct further investigation/investigation, the High Court restricted the scope of investigation. The High Court did not appreciate and consider the fact that both the FIRs namely FIR Nos.260 of 2018 and 227 of 2019 can be said to be interconnected and the allegations of a larger conspiracy are required to be investigated. It is alleged that the overall allegations are disappearance of the trucks transporting the beer/contraband goods which are subject to the rules and regulations of the Excise Department and Excise Law. The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings by observing that there was no loss to the Excise Department. However, the High Court did not at all appreciate the allegations of the larger conspiracy. The FIR need not be an encyclopedia. [Para 7.2, 7.3][783-C-E]
Satpal v. Haryana (2018) 6 SCC 110 – relied on.
1.3 Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that the allegation of missing of two trucks was the beginning of the investigation and when during the investigation it was alleged that earlier also a number of trucks were missing transporting contraband goods, the FIR should not have been restricted to missing of the two trucks only and return of on the goods thereafter. The High Court has not at all appreciated and/or considered the allegation of the larger conspiracy and that both the FIRs/criminal cases are interconnected and part of the main conspiracy which is very serious if found to be true. However, this Court refrains from making any further observations as at this stage of proceedings, the stage is of deciding the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. only and as the trial of both the cases have yet to take place. In the facts and circumstances of the case the High Court has committed a grave/serious error in quashing and setting aside the criminal proceedings arising out of Criminal Case No.5694 of 2019 and Case Crime No.260 of 2018 PS lodged under Section 406. [Para 7.4][783-F-H; 784-A-B]
1.4 The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings is unsustainable. The High Court exceeded in its jurisdiction in quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is quashed and set aside to the extent quashing and setting aside the criminal proceedings under Section 406. The proceedings before the trial court are ordered to be restored to file. [Para 7.1, 8][784-C]
Odisha v. Pratima Mohanty (2021) SCC Online SC 1222; CBI v. Thommandru (2021) SCC Online SC 923; Rajeev Kourav v. Baisahab (2020) 3 SCC 317;
Neeharika Infrastructure v. Maharashtra (2021) SCC Online SC 315 – relied on.
Ch. Bhajan Lal v. State of Haryana (1992) 1 Suppl. SCC 335 : [1990] 3 Suppl. SCR 259; Indian Oil Corporation v. N.E.P.C. India Ltd. and Others (2006) 6 SCC 736 : [2006] 3 Suppl. SCR 704; Jetking Infotrain Ltd. v. State of U.P. (2015) 11 SCC 730 : [2006] 3 Suppl. SCR 704; Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor (2013) 3 SCC 330 : [2013] 3 SCR 52; Divine Retreat v. Kerala (2008) 3 SCC 542 : [2008] 4 SCR 701 – referred to. ORS.
2. The High Court delivered the impugned judgment and order after a period of six months after the matter was reserved for judgment. Though the judgment and order passed by the High Court may not be set aside on the said ground only, however it is always advisable that the High Court delivers the judgment at the earliest after the arguments are concluded and the judgment is reserved. [Para 6.2][781-G-H; 782-A]
Anil Rai v. State of Bihar (2001) 7 SCC 318 : [2001] 1 Suppl. SCR 298; Bhagwandas Fatechand Daswani and Ors. v. HPA International and Ors. (2000) 2 SCC 13 : [2000] 1 SCR 254 – 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.