Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. Nageswara Rao, Sanjiv Khanna, JJ.
Aryan Mining And Trading Corporation Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 229 of 2019
Decided On : 06-02-2019
Quashing of FIR - Civil Dispute - The court held that the dispute was essentially of civil nature and the offences alleged were not made out. The High Court should have examined the allegations made in the FIR instead of refusing to quash it on the ground of ongoing investigation.
Fact of the Case:
Respondent No.2 filed a complaint under Section 284, 420, 34, and 109 of IPC alleging an agreement to purchase iron ore and subsequent cancellation of the agreement. A petition was filed to quash the FIR, which was refused by the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dispute was of a civil nature and the alleged offences were not made out. The High Court's refusal to quash the FIR based on ongoing investigation was incorrect.
Issues: Quashing of FIR, Alleged Offences, Civil Nature of Dispute
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the High Court should have examined the allegations made in the FIR to adjudicate the matter instead of refusing to quash it based on ongoing investigation. The dispute was found to be of a civil nature and the alleged offences were not made out.
Final Decision: The judgment of the High Court was set aside, and the FIR was quashed. The appellants were directed to pay interest at the rate of 12% on the amount deposited by respondent No.2.
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. Respondent No.2 filed a complaint which was registered as FIR No.106/2011 under Section 284,420,34 and 109 of IPC. It was alleged that there was an agreement to purchase iron ore pursuant to which respondent No.2 deposited an amount of Rs.1,82,48,800/-.
3. Respondent No.2 was informed on 18.1.2011 that the agreement was cancelled in view of the amount not being deposited by respondent No.2.
4. A petition was filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of FIR. The High Court refused to quash the FIR on the ground that the investigation is in progress. The High Court was also of the opinion that a prima facie case was not made out by the respondents.
5. Having examined the matter in detail and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the dispute essentially is of civil nature and a perusal of the FIR makes it clear that the offences alleged against the appellants are not made out. The High Court ought to have examined the allegations made in the FIR to adjudicate the matter. Instead, the High Court refused to quash the FIR on the ground that the investigation is in progress.
6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we set aside the judgment of the High Court and quash FIR No. 106/2011.
7. There is no dispute regarding the refund of the amount deposited by respondent No.2. The complaint of respondent No.2 is that the appellants retained the amount for a period of six months.
8. Mr. Puneet Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants fairly submits that the appellants are willing to pay reasonable interest on the amount retained by them. We direct the appellants to pay interest at the rate of 12% for the amount deposited by respondent No.2 from the date of payment till the date of refund.
9. The appeal is accordingly, disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
