Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ANIRUDDHA BOSE, SANJAY KUMAR, JJ.
Mamta Shailesh Chandra – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No(s). 462 of 2024 (Arising from SLP (Crl.) No(s). 7273 of 2019)
Decided on : 29-01-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. J.C.Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anurag Tomar, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Jaswant Singh Rawat, AOR Mr. Vikas Negi, Adv. Mr. Kailash Chander Sharma, Adv. Mrs. Kamlesh Pant, Adv. Ms. Ikshita Parihar, Adv.

The court established that the submission of a chargesheet does not automatically render a quashing petition infructuous, and the court retains the authority to assess the merits of the case based on the FIR and other documents.

Headnote:
[CRIMINAL LAW] - [QUASHING OF FIR] - [The court held that the dismissal of a writ petition for quashing an FIR based solely on the submission of a chargesheet was incorrect. It emphasized that the court can still assess whether prima facie offences are made out, regardless of the chargesheet's submission, referencing a precedent that supports this interpretation.]
Fact of the Case:

The appellant filed a criminal writ petition to quash an FIR alleging offences under Sections 420 and 409 of the Penal Code, 1860, related to financial irregularities in a Cooperative Bank where he was a Branch Manager. The High Court dismissed the petition, stating it became infructuous after the chargesheet was filed.
Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court's reasoning, citing a precedent that allows for examination of the FIR and chargesheet to determine if prima facie offences are established, even after a chargesheet is filed.
Issues: Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition on the grounds that the filing of a chargesheet rendered the petition infructuous.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that the filing of a chargesheet does not preclude the court from examining the merits of a quashing petition, as established in previous judgments.
Result: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, remanding the case for a merits hearing and directing that the appellant not be arrested until the High Court decides the writ petition.

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant had filed a criminal writ petition before the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital for quashing an F.I.R. registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 420 & 409 of the Penal Code, 1860. The proceeding arose on account of certain financial irregularities detected in a Cooperative Bank of which the appellant was posted as a Branch Manager. The ground on which the High Court has dismissed the quashing plea is that chargesheet had been submitted subsequent to filing of the quashing petition. On that basis, the High Court came to the conclusion that the criminal writ petition had become infructuous.

3. We do not agree with the reasoning of the High Court for dismissing the writ petition of the appellant, having regard to the ratio of the judgment of this Court delivered on 04.07.2011 in the case of Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 7 SCC 59. That was a case arising from the quashing plea of an F.I.R., where chargesheet was submitted after institution of the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. A Coordinate Bench of this Court opined that even if the charge sheet had been filed, the Court could still examine if offences alleged to have been committed were prima facie made out or not on the basis of the F.I.R., chargesheet and other documents.

4. We, accordingly, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the High Court. Let the High Court hear the criminal writ petition on merit. We also direct, on the basis of materials disclosed, that the appellant shall not be arrested for the offences alleged in the said F.I.R. until the High Court decides the criminal writ petition on merit, unless a case is made out before the High Court that the appellant's detention is necessary on account of any development subsequent to filing of the chargesheet. We issue this direction in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

5. The present appeal stands allowed in the above terms.

6. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document