Back
2022 Supreme(SC) 1829
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Indira Banerjee, V. Ramasubramanian, JJ.
Wyeth Limited & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Bihar & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1224 of 2022 (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 10730 of 2018)
Decided On : 11-08-2022
Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Gopal Jain, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Ajay Singh, Advocate, Mr. Samir Rohatgi, Advocate, Ms. Alka Sinha, Advocate, Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Vivek Kumar Singh, Advocate, Mr. Anuvrat Sharma, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Saket Singh, Advocate, Ms. Somya Shree, Advocate, Mr. Azmat Amanullah, Advocate, Mrs. Niranjana Singh, Advocate, Mr. Narender Hooda, Sr. Advocate, Mr. shaurya Lamba, Advocate, Mr. Akash Bhuyan, Advocate, Mr. Rushte Saluja, Advocate, Mr. Ranjan Kumar Pandey, Advocate, for the Respondent.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that if no offence is made out by a careful reading of the complaint, the complaint deserves to be quashed.
Headnote:
Criminal Complaint - Quashing of FIR - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 482, 200, 156(3), 120-B, 406, 420, 408, 460, 471, 384, 311, 193, 196 IPC
Fact of the Case:
The appellants filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) seeking to quash an FIR registered against them. The High Court dismissed the petition, and the appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court found that the criminal complaint filed by the respondent did not disclose the commission of any offence by the appellants. The Court also noted that the subsequent development of filing the charge-sheet and the prayer for quashing the charge-sheet were overlooked by the High Court. The Court held that the FIR and the charge-sheet against the appellants should be quashed.
Issues: The primary contention was that the complaint filed by the respondent did not disclose the commission of any offence. The appellants also argued that the High Court overlooked the pendency of an application for bringing on record the charge-sheet and for the inclusion of a prayer for quashing the charge-sheet.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that even if all the averments contained in the complaint are taken to be true, they do not make out any of the alleged offences against the appellants. The Court also emphasized that the High Court was in error in overlooking the application for bringing on record the subsequent development of the filing of the charge-sheet and the prayer for inclusion of the relief of quashing of the charge-sheet in the original petition.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order of the High Court was set aside. The FIR and the charge-sheet against the appellants were quashed, and there were no costs awarded.
JUDGMENT
V. Ramasubramanian, J. - Leave granted.
2. Aggrieved by an order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna dismissing a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C") for quashing an FIR registered at the instance of the second respondent herein, the appellants have come up with the above appeal.
3. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, the learned standing counsel for the State of Bihar Signature Not Verified and the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2, who was the complainant.
4. The respondent No.2 was engaged by appellant no.1 as its Carrying and Forwarding agent (C&F), on certain terms and conditions, reduced into writing. The agreement continued from time to time until February-2012.
5. Thereafter disputes arose between appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 which led to appellant No.1 filing a civil suit on the file of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, in CS No.1432 of 2012. In the said suit, the High Court passed an order appointing a Court Receiver to take possession of the goods including medicines belonging to appellant No.1, which were in the possession of respondent no.2. The Court Receiver seems to have executed the warrant and recovered possession of certain goods, the details of which are not relevant for our present purpose.
6. Apart from filing a civil suit, appellant No.1 also filed a criminal complaint against respondent No.2 for alleged offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. By an order dated 14.08.2013, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna took cognizance and issued summons to respondent No.2.
7. Thereafter respondent No.2 filed a criminal complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna. On 12.12.2013, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna passed an order directing the copy of the complaint to be forwarded to the Patliputra Police Station, for registration of an FIR against the appellants herein. Pursuant to the said order, the Patliputra Police Station registered an FIR in Crime No.17 of 2014 on 07.01.2014, against the appellants herein, for alleged offences under Sections 406, 420, 408, 460, 471, 384, 311, 193, 196 read with Section 120-B IPC.
8. Challenging the FIR so registered, the appellants filed a petition in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.13742 of 2014 on the file of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking the quashing of the same. When the said petition came up for final hearing in the year 2018, the Court was informed that the police had already filed a charge-sheet and that the Chief Judicial Magistrate had taken cognizance of the same.
9. In the light of the subsequent development as aforesaid, the High Court of Judicature at Patna dismissed the quash petition on the only ground that it was not proper to keep the matter pending any further. The High Court did not choose to go into the merits of the contentions, despite the fact that appellant No.1 moved an application in IA No.1015 of 2014 for bringing on record the charge-sheet and also for inclusion of a prayer for quashing the charge-sheet.
10. Aggrieved by such a disposal of their quash petition, the appellants are before this Court.
11. The primary contention of Mr. Mukul Rohatgi and Mr. Gopal Jain, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants is: (i) that the complaint filed by respondent No.2 does not disclose the commission of any offence; (ii) that the complaint filed by respondent No.2 was only a counter blast to the civil suit filed by appellant No.1 and a criminal complaint lodged by the appellants against respondent No.2; (iii) that the High Court overlooked the pendency of an application for bringing on record the charge-sheet and for the inclusion of a prayer for quashing of the charge-sheet.
12. In response, it is contended by Mr. Narender Hooda, learned senior counsel for respondent No.2 that though the appellants moved an application for bringing
