2020 Supreme(SC) 675

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.A. Bobde, CJI., A.S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian, JJ.
SKODA AUTO VOLKSWAGEN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED – APPELLANT(S)
Versus
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. – RESPONDENT(S)
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 4931 of 2020
Decided on : 26-11-2020

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Courts would not thwart any investigation. Quashing of a complaint should rather be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule.
(2) In a petition for quashing FIR, Court cannot go into disputed questions of fact. Mere delay on part of complainant in lodging complaint, cannot by itself be a ground to quash FIR.

Headnote:

(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Exercise of inherent jurisdiction – Courts would not thwart any investigation – It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in first information report that Court will not permit an investigation to go on – Power of quashing should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in rarest of rare cases – While examining a complaint quashing of which is sought, Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to reliability or genuineness or otherwise of allegations made in FIR or in complaint – Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at initial stage – Quashing of a complaint should rather be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule – If a perusal of first information report leads to disclosure of an offence even broadly, law courts are barred from usurping jurisdiction of police, since two organs of State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over other sphere. (Para 41)

(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 34, 471, 468, 467, 420, 419 and 406 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Forgery, cheating and cheating – Common intention – Refusal of High Court to quash FIR but protection provided against arrest – In a petition for quashing FIR, Court cannot go into disputed questions of fact – Mere delay on part of complainant in lodging complaint, cannot by itself be a ground to quash FIR – Order of NGT, passed on applications filed by certain individuals not claiming as purchasers of vehicles, cannot be taken as an impediment for an individual who purchased cars from manufacturers, to lodge a complaint, if he has actually suffered on account of any representation made by manufacturers – At this stage no one can presume whether the defence of manufacturer to police complaint will be purely on a question of fact or purely on a question of law or on mixed questions of fact and law – High Court has been fair to petitioner by granting protection against arrest till filing of report under Section 173(2) of Code – SLP dismissed. (Paras 18, 19, 23, 37, 40 and 42)

Facts of the case:

Aggrieved by the refusal of the High Court to quash a First Information Report (FIR for short) registered against them for the offences punishable under Sections 34, 471, 468, 467, 420, 419 and 406 IPC, the petitioner has come up with the above Special Leave Petition. Main contentions of the petitioner are:(i) That the Police cannot investigate an issue, substratum of which is subjudice before this Court in the civil appeals arising out of the order of the NGT; and (ii) That the High Court failed to take note of the long delay on the part of the 3rd Respondent in lodging the complaint

Findings of Court:

European Union woke up way back in 2007 to the reality of car makers installing a software that manipulate exhaust emissions, depending upon whether the car ran on a test stand or on the road. After the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre found in 2011 that the levels of harmful NOx emissions far exceeded the prescribed levels, a study conducted by the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) revealed similar results in the United States. In September 2015, allegations of installation of manipulation devices by car manufacturers emerged from the US Environmental Protection Agency and this triggered investigations in several European Union States. After claims were lodged and legal action initiated, the German Federal Motor Transport Authority appears to have given permission in June 2016 for the recall of about 2 million vehicles across Europe.

Result : Special Leave Petition dismissed.