Quashing of FIR based on delay alone is impermissible when the specific role of the respondent is assigned, and legal provisions under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Sections 468, 469, and 473 must be considered.

ORDER :

A.M. Ahmadi, J.

1. Special leave granted.

2. Heard learned counsel for the State as well as the contesting respondent. We are afraid that the High Court was not right in quashing the First Information Report on the plea that the said respondent had no role to play and was never the custodian of the paddy in question. In fact it was averred in the counter-affidavit filed in the High Court that the said respondent had acted in collusion with Kashmira Singh resulting in the latter misappropriating the paddy in question. At the relevant point of time the respondent concerned, it is alleged, was in overall charge of the Government Seed Farm, Trehan. This allegation forms the basis of the involvement of the respondent concerned. The High Court was, therefore, wrong in saying that the respondent concerned had no role to play. A specific role is assigned to him, it may be proved or may fail. In any case, pursuant to the First Information Report the investigation was undertaken and a charge-sheet or a police report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed in the court. If the investigation papers annexed to the charge-sheet do not disclose the commission of any crime by the respondent concerned, it would be open to the court to refuse to frame a charge, but quashing of the First Information Report was not permissible.

3. The High Court has quashed the FIR on the ground of delay. It has pointed out that the offence took place in 1984 while the FIR was lodged in 1988 and the challan was presented much later. That may be a matter relevant to the question of taking cognizance under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In taking the decision whether or not to take cognizance the Court would have to bear in mind the provisions in clauses (b) and (c) of Sections 469 and 473 of the Code as well. The High Court has not applied its mind to these provisions and has quashed the FIR which is wrong.

4. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the High Court quashing the FIR and remit the matter back to the trial court to proceed from the stage of filing of the charge-sheet against the respondent concerned.

5. The appeals are allowed accordingly.