IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Power to quash FIR must be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases.
(2) Sections 195 and 340 Cr.P.C. do not control or circumscribe power of police to investigate offence and embargo will come to operate only at the stage of taking cognizance.

Headnote:(i) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 482-Petition to quash FIR-Scope for exercise of power-Power has to be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and in rarest of rare cases-Court would not be justified in embarking upon inquiry as to reliability or genuineness or otherwise of allegations in FIR-In impugned judgment High Court examined documents, compared signatures thereon and proceeded to arrive at conclusion that documents were not false or fabricated-Reasons for quashing FIR were unsustainable.
       Held : It must also be mentioned that it is settled law that the power to quash must be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection. It must be exercised in the rarest of rare cases. It is also settled law that the Court would not be justified in embarking upon an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR. The Court also cannot inquire whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established or not. Keeping the above-mentioned principles in mind let us now see what the High Court has done in the impugned judgment. In the impugned judgment the High Court proceeds to consider the case of the Appellant in the complaint and the case made out by the Respondents. The High Court examines the documents, compare the signatures thereon and then proceeds to arrive at the conclusion that the documents are not false or fabricated. The High Court takes into consideration certain photographs and other material produced by the Respondents and concludes that the complaint was vexatious, frivolous and false. On this basis the High Court proceeds to quash the complaint and impose cost of Rs. 10,000 on the Appellant. The High Court does not conclude, as it could not have, that the allegations made in the complaint, if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. The High Court does not conclude, as it could not have, that the allegations in the complaint do not disclose a cognizable offence justifying an investigation by the police officer. The conclusion of the High Court that the complaint was false, vexatious and frivolous is based on material produced by the Respondents. One fails to understand how without evidence the High Court could have relied on this material. It is clear that the impugned order is totally unsustainable. To the credit of Counsel, appearing for the Respondents, it must be stated that the impugned order was not sought to be supported for the reasons given by the High Court in quashing the complaint. It was fairly admitted that the reasons given by the High Court, in quashing the complaint, were unsustainable. (Para 5 and 6)
       (ii) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 195-In a suit for injunction filed by appellant, defendant-respondent were alleged to have filed certain forged documents-Bar of Section 195 Cr.P.C. in lodging of FIR and investigation by police-Sections 195 and 340 Cr.P.C. do not control or circumscribe power of police to investigate the offence-Embargo would come only at stage of cognizance-At the stage of investigation Section 195 had no application.
       Held : Sections 195 and 340 do not control or circumscribe the power of the police to investigate under the Criminal Procedure Code. Once investigation is completed then the embargo in Section 195 would come into play and the Court would not be competent to take cognizance. However that Court could then file a complaint for the offence on the basis of the FIR and the material collected during investigation provided the procedure laid down in Section 340 Criminal Procedure Code is followed. Thus no right of the Respondents, much less the right to file an appeal under Section 341, is affected. (Para 8)

JUDGMENT

S.N. Variava, J.-Leave granted.

Heard parties.

2. This Appeal is against an Order dated 26th August, 2002 whereby an FIR has been quashed.

3. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:

The Appellant is the owner of survey No. 66 in Sarakki village. He appears to have entered into an agreement to sell dated 18th February, 1988 with his sister one Nirmala. This agreement was for 25,188 sq ft. in survey No. 66. Respondent No. 2 is the son of the said Nirmala. Respondent No. 4 is the daughter of the said Nirmala. Respondent No. 3 is a daughter-in-law, through a deceased son of Nirmala. It is the case of the Appellant that he had permitted his sister Nirmala to reside in the plot agreed to be sold to her as his licensee. On 7th September, 2000 Respondents 2 to 4 filed a suit for partition. Appellant claims that in this suit, partition was also claimed of the 25,188 sq ft. Respondents 2 to 4 deny that the claim in partition suit includes this piece of land. We are not concerned with this controversy, save and except to note that admittedly the documents set out hereunder were not produced or relied upon in this suit. The Appellant claims that he learnt that Respondents 2 to 4 were trying to get this piece of land transferred to their names on the basis of some partition deed. The Appellant thus filed a suit against Respondents 2 to 4 for a permanent injunction restraining change of name in the records. Respondents 2 to 4 filed a written statement wherein they relied upon three documents all dated 21st October, 1989. The documents are (a) a general power of attorney (b) a sale cum possession receipts (c) and affidavits purported to have been sworn by the Appellant. The Appellant claims that these documents were never executed by him. The Appellant claims that he also found some manipulations in the agreement to sell dated 18th February, 1988. The Appellant thus filed, on 27th May, 2002, a complaint with the police station at Ulsoor complaining that these documents were forged and fabricated. An FIR under Sections 468, 470, 471 and 120B Indian Penal Code came to be registered. Respondents 2 and 3 filed a Petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the FIR. This has been allowed by the High Court. Hence this Appeal.

4. Before dealing with the High Court judgment, which has been impugned, it is first necessary to set out well settled law. The law has been very succinctly set out in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal reported in (1992) Supp. (1) SCC 335. In this case the High Court had quashed an FIR. While setting aside the High Court judgment this Court held as follows:-

"31. At the stage of registration of a crime or a case on the basis of the information disclosing a cognizable offence in compliance with the mandate of Section 154(1) of the Code, the concerned police officer can not embark upon an enquiry as to whether the information, laid by the informant is reliable and genuine or otherwise and refuse to register a case on the ground that the information is not reliable or credible. On the other hand, the officer in charge of a police station is statutorily obliged to register a case and then to proceed with the investigation if he has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under Section 156 of the Code to investigate, subject to the proviso to section 157. (As we have proposed to make a detailed discussion about the power of a police officer in the field of investigation of a cognizable offence within the ambit of Sections 156 and 157 of the Code in the ensuing part of this judgment, we do not propose to deal with those sections in extenso in the present context.) In case, an officer in charge of a police station refuses to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him and to register a case on the information of a cognizable offence reported and thereby violates the statutory duty cast upon him, the person aggrieved by such refusal can send the substance of the informatio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 933

Cases Referred (2)