Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, M.R. SHAH, JJ.
Kaptan Singh – Appellant
Versus
The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 787 of 2021
Decided On : 13-08-2021
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 147, 148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 – Quashing of criminal case by High Court – When High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashed criminal proceedings, by the time Investigating Officer after recording statement of witnesses, statement of complainant and collecting evidence from incident place and after taking statement of independent witnesses and even statement of accused persons, has filed charge-sheet before Magistrate for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 of IPC and even Magistrate also took cognizance – It does not appear that High Court took into consideration material collected during investigation/inquiry and even statements recorded – If petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was at stage of FIR in that case allegations in FIR/Complaint only are required to be considered and whether a cognizable offence is disclosed or not is required to be considered – However, thereafter when statements are recorded, evidence is collected and charge-sheet is filed after conclusion of investigation/inquiry matter stands on different footing and Court is required to consider material/evidence collected during investigation – Even at this stage also, High Court is not required to go into merits of allegations and/or enter into merits of case as if High Court is exercising appellate jurisdiction and/or conducting trial – In order to examine as to whether factual contents of FIR disclose any cognizable offence or not, High Court cannot act like Investigating agency nor can exercise powers like an Appellate Court – High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – High Court has failed to appreciate and consider fact that there are very serious triable issues/allegations which are required to be gone into and considered at the time of trial – High Court has lost sight of crucial aspects which have emerged during course of investigation – High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Complainant has not placed on record power of attorney along with counter filed before High Court – Original complainant has no locus – Impugned judgment and order passed by High Court quashing criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashed and set aside – Now, trial to be conducted and proceeded further in accordance with law and on its own merits. (Paras 9.1, 9.3, 10, 11, 12 and 13)
Facts of the case:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 29.07.2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Application under Section 482 No. 1697 of 2016, by which High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has quashed the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 3302 of 2015 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC, P.S. Barra, District Kanpur Nagar, pending in the Court of I-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, the original complainant has preferred present appeal.
Findings of Court:
High Court has grossly erred in quashing the criminal proceedings by entering into the merits of the allegations as if the High Court was exercising the appellate jurisdiction and/or conducting the trial. The High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 29.07.2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Application under Section 482 No. 1697 of 2016, by which the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has quashed the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 3302 of 2015 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC, P.S. Barra, District Kanpur Nagar, pending in the Court of I-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, the original complainant has preferred the present appeal.
2. That the appellant herein filed a complaint before the learned Magisterial Court under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the private respondents for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC; that the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, by order dated 07.09.2015, after perusal of the facts mentioned in the application/complaint and documents and having found a prima facie case of cognizable offence and having observed that the police is required to investigate the same, allowed the said application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and directed the concerned Station House Officer to register the first information report and investigate it in accordance with law.
2.1 That thereafter the concerned SHO registered the FIR as Case Crime No. 0645 of 2015 against the private respondents herein for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC. As per the allegations in the FIR, one Munni Devi was the owner of Plot No. 1342, W Block 2 Yojna Juhi Kala, Damodar Nagar, admeasuring 387 sq. ft. that she appointed the complainant - Kaptan Singh as her power of attorney holder to take care of the said plot; that Munni Devi wanted to sell the said plot; that she entered into a registered agreement to sell with one Mamta Gupta - respondent no. 3 herein on 27.10.2010 for a total sale consideration of Rs. 25,00,000/- that at the time of agreement, the purchaser - Mamta Gupta handed over five cheques of Rs. 2 lakh each, drawn on ICICI Bank, Branch Govind Nagar, Kanpur; that Munni Devi presented one of the cheques no. 502314 dated 15.11.2010 in her bank and the said cheque was dishonoured “due to insufficient funds” that when the cheque returned unpaid, Munni Devi contacted Mamta Gupta and then she informed her that her husband is suffering from kidney failure and facing financial problem and therefore she would not be able to purchase the said plot, however she is arranging money; that thereafter Mamta Gupta showed no interest for registration of sale deed and she informed Munni Devi not to present the cheques; that thereafter Munni Devi served a legal notice dated 02.01.2015 and 18.05.2015 through registered post; that after receiving notice dated 18.05.2015, Mamta Gupta showed no positive response, then Munni Devi appointed the complainant as a power of attorney holder on 05.08.2015.
2.2 It was alleged that thereafter when the complainant along with his friend Ram Pratap Singh went to the plot on 20.08.2015, at that time Mamta Gupta and her husband were present there along with three other persons outside the tin shed. The complainant told them that they have not paid the full consideration amount and had forcibly put lock on the room and requested them to open the said lock. At that time, Mamta Gupta and her husband told them that they had paid Rs. 2 lakhs and they will not open the lock till the time they will get Rs. 10 lakhs. It was alleged that all the persons abused the complainant by using filthy language relating to his mother and sister and pushed the complainant due to which he fell down and thereafter he was beaten with fist and Mamta Gupta, who was carrying knife like weapon, kept the edged part of it on his chest and gave a blank paper and threatened him to sign it, if not, then he will be killed and the complainant signed it. The complainant also produced the medical report. That thereafter after
(1) A bonafide criminal case cannot be stifled at threshold by High Court.(2) In order to examine as to whether factual contents of FIR disclose any cognizable offence or not, High Court cannot act l....
High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to conclusion that allowing proceeding to continue would be abuse of process of Court or that ends of justice require that proceeding ought to....
The power to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly and only when the allegations do not disclose a prima facie case of a criminal offence.
The court held that distinctions between civil and criminal transactions may not bar criminal proceedings when fraud or wrongdoing is alleged, requiring an investigation into the claims.
Inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC do not permit quashing proceedings when prima facie evidence of a crime is present, mandating a trial to ascertain truth.
(1) Quashing of criminal case – High Court is justified in quashing complaint and FIR at a stage when Magistrate had merely directed investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.(2) Quashing of criminal....
(1) To exercise powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., complaint in its entirety shall have to be examined on the basis of allegation made in complaint/FIR/charge-sheet and High Court at that stage was no....
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
