The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not permit the High Court to go into disputed questions of fact or to appreciate the defence of the accused. The power to interdict a criminal proceeding at the stage of investigation is rare.

ORDER :

SLP(Crl.) No. 3555 of 2015.

Leave granted.

2. The High Court of Karnataka by its order dated 19.06.2014 interdicted the investigation of a criminal proceeding and after a lapse of almost eleven months i.e. on 22.05.2015 made available its reasons for the impugned conclusions. The correctness of the said view has been assailed before us in the present appeal.

3. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

4. A perusal of the order of the High Court released on 21.05.2015 would indicate that the High Court has gone far beyond the contours of its power and jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a criminal proceeding, the extent of such jurisdiction having been dealt with by this Court in numerous pronouncements over the last half century. Time and again, it has been emphasized by this Court that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would not permit the High Court to go into disputed questions of fact or to appreciate the defence of the accused. The power to interdict a criminal proceeding at the stage of investigation is even more rare. Broadly speaking, a criminal investigation, unless tainted by clear malafides, should not be foreclosed by a Court of Law.

5. It is perhaps upon realization of the limited parameters of High Court's jurisdiction, that Shri Mahesh Jethmalani, learned senior counsel for the respondent-accused, has in all fairness confined his arguments to what the learned counsel comprehends to be the core issue, namely, whether there was any F.I.R. in existence in law so as to enable an investigation to be undertaken.

6. Apart from drawing our attention to the initial complaint dated 02.03.2013, which was registered as a petition by the jurisdictional police station and the F.I.R. registered on 11.03.2013, Shri Jethmalani has read out the statements of Smt. Sharadhadevi, Shri S.E. Nagesh, Shri Vasudev, Shri G. Udaya Ravi and Shri G.N. Mohan made in the course of inquiry proceedings held pursuant to the impugned order of the High Court. On the basis of the aforesaid statements, it is contended that it is clear and evident that there was no valid F.I.R. lodged to be registered as a criminal offence for investigation.

7. We are afraid, we do not agree with what has been very forcefully argued on behalf of the respondent-accused.

8. On a consideration of the statements of the persons examined in the course of investigation, referred to above, as well as the statements of other such persons examined, findings were recorded by the Enquiry Officer in his report submitted to the High Court which, inter alia, is to the following effect:-

"On 2.3.2013, a complaint was lodged with Nazarbad PS of Mysore City by Eward Joubert Vaningen wherein he was accompanied by Tilly Gifford, Ajit Lobo and Marina Meyn. The then PI, Nazarbad police station Mr. Mohan did not act on the complaint immediately and the same complaint was considered only on 11.3.2013 at 18.45 hours wherein a criminal case was registered vide Nazarbad police station Cr.No.46/13 u/s 403-409-420 and 464 IPC. The original complaint of Edwin Joubert Vaningen was missing from the case file. Serious procedural lapses in registration of the FIR was seen and the misplaced original complaint and the delay in the registration of the FIR till 11.3.2013 (day prior to the death of Edwin Joubert Vaningen) raise serious doubts regarding the reasons for such delay. The delay in taking action on the complaint of Edwin Joubert Vaningen between 2.3.2013 to 11.3.2013 only benefits Michael Floyd Eshwer. The delay and the advantage it gives to Michael Floyd Eshwer would safely permit us to conclude that omission and commissions by then PI of Nazarbad police station Mr. Mohan and the then DCP Shri Basavaraj Malagatti were at the behest of Michael Floyd Eshwer."

9. We have extracted the aforesaid findings (which clearly appear to be against the respondent-accused) only to highlight the fact that the statements on which reliance has been placed have been appreciated by the Inqu