Important point
High Court would not be justified to quash FIR in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. merely on the ground that counsel for State gave a statement that decision was taken by the Government to withdraw the case.

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 482—Petition to quash FIR recorded for offence under Sections 382, 353, 506 and 186 IPC, on the complaint of appellant, an Agricultural Development Officer (Enforcement)—During pendency of petition, a statement on behalf of State was made that a decision was taken by Government to withdraw the case—High Court quashed the FIR after recording said statement—Appeal by complainant—Locus standi —Aggrieved complainant was not prevented, from agitating his grievance by way of this appeal—Decision of Government to withdraw the prosecution was irrelevant ground so far as High Court was concerned to consider quashing petition—High Court could have quashed FIR if it came to conclusion that complaint did not make out a triable case—Impugned order being unsustainable, matter was not required to be remitted to High Court to consider the petition again.
Held : As stated above, what is pending before the High Court was a quashing petition filed under Section 482 of the Code wherein the scope of interference the High Court is quite restricted. In such a petition in our opinion, accepting a statement made by the counsel for the State, High Court could not have quashed the petition solely on that ground. It could only have quashed the petition if it came to the conclusion that the complaint of the appellant did not make out a triable case against the petitioners before it. The decision of the Government to withdraw the prosecution is an irrelevant ground so far as High Court is concerned to allow a petition for quashing. It is rather surprising why further directions were issued by the High Court to the police and the Magistrate not to prosecute the petitioners once it quashed the complaint. The direction issued in the impugned order by the High Court in our opinion is wholly without jurisdiction even under Section 482 of the Code. The High Court ought to have noticed the fact that but for the grant of stay order, there was a possibility of the trial court even framing charge against the respondents accused as for back as on 25th October, 2000 when the case was listed for the said purpose in which event there could have been room for argument that even a Section 321 petition would not be maintainable. Noticing this error in the judgment of the High Court Shri Dhruv Mehta, learned counsel submitted that in the interest of justice we should remand the matter back to the High Court to consider the quashing petition on merits since according to him the complainant did not make out any triable case at all. We do not think that this prayer can be granted. Since we have come to the conclusion that the impugned judgment is unsustainable in law, it must suffer the consequences. (Paras 9 and 10)

Judgment

Santosh Hegde, J.—The appellant is the complainant in FIR No. 26 dated 10.2.1998 registered with the Police Station, Majitha in Punjab. In the said complaint he alleged that the respondent herein Jagdish Kumar and some others of M/s Bhalla Kheti Store and the respondent Rakesh Kumar and others of M/s. Bina Khad Store had committed criminal acts punishable under Section 382, 353, 506, 186 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’) when he along with the staff had gone to check the stock register and quality of the goods namely super phosphate sold by them. After registering the case the concerned police authorities were investigating the same. During the pendency of the investigation the accused Jagdish Kumar and Rakesh Kumar named herein above filed two separate Criminal Misc. Petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. When the High Court was seized of the above-criminal misc. petitions, in both the petitions a statement was made on behalf of the State that a decision has been taken by the Government to withdraw the complaint filed in FIR No. 26 dated 10.2.1998 registered at the police station, Majitha (Punjab) for the above said offence. Recording the said statement the High Court in two identical orders quashed the said FIR and gave directions to the police and the learned Magistrate not to prosecute the respective petitioners on the basis of the said FIR. It is these two orders which are challenged before us in the above criminal appeal.

2. Before we proceed to examine the correctness of the impugned orders of the High Court it is necessary to note certain other developments that took place during the pendency of the quashing petition in the High Court. On the very day the complaint was lodged in the police station, the two concerned accused sent complaints to the State Government making certain allegations against the appellant herein who was then the Agricultural Development Officer (Enforcement) in the Department of Agriculture, Punjab State alleging among other things, demand of bribe and consequent harassment meted out by him to them for non-payment of bribe.

3. On the basis of the above-mentioned complaints of the respondents herein the Government initiated certain inquiries and based on the report received on such inquiries the opinion of the District Attorney was sought who as per his opinion recommended to file an application under Section 321 of the Code for withdrawal of the prosecution. The State also consulted the Addl. Public Prosecutor who was appearing in the trial, who also recommended the withdrawal of the prosecution. It is at this stage when Section 321 application was still pending, the High Court by the impugned orders quashed the proceedings and directed to the police authorities and the learned Magistrate not to prosecute the petitioners on the basis of the above said FIR.

4. It is also noticed from the material on record that immediately on coming to know of the recommendation made by the authorities for withdrawal of the prosecution, the appellant herein filed reply to the application opposing such withdrawal and sought for permission to prosecute the case personally as a complainant in the event of State Government was not desiring to pursue the prosecution.

5. In view of the order of the stay granted by the High Court in the quashing proceedings the proposed framing of the charge by the trial court fixed for 25th October, 2000 could not be proceeded with and in view of the impugned order made by the High Court on 19th October, 2001 consideration of an application under Section 321 of the Code by the trial court became futile.

6. It is in this background the appellant in criminal appeal No. 964 of 2002 first preferred the said appeal which was entertained by this court and after issuance of notice, leave was granted on 13th September, 2002. Criminal Appeal N

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2005 Supreme(SC) 320

Important pointHigh Court would not be justified to quash FIR in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. merely on the ground that counsel for State gave a statement that decision was taken by the Government to withdraw the case.

Cases Referred (5)

Important point
High Court would not be justified to quash FIR in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. merely on the ground that counsel for State gave a statement that decision was taken by the Government to withdraw the case.