1. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of First Information Report — High Court rejection without consideration of merits. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 1778
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA, PANKAJ MITHAL, JJ.
Shiv Kumar Sharma – Appellant
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 3347 of 2023 [Arising Out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 9667 of 2023]
Decided On : 30-10-2023
Important Points
The Supreme Court emphasized that a High Court must consider the merits of a petition when quashing an FIR, rather than dismiss it without analysis.
Subject
Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 482 and 173 - The appellant sought to quash an FIR, but the High Court rejected the petition without considering the merits of the case and incorrectly stated that the Investigating Officer would allow the appellant to explain the collected material before submitting the final report. (Paras 3, 4)
(B) High Court's failure - The court did not address the merits of the appellant’s case. (Paras 4, 5)
(C) Remand for consideration - The Supreme Court restored the appellant's case for merit consideration while extending interim relief until a specified date. (Paras 5, 7)
Facts of the case:
The appellant filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash an FIR. The High Court dismissed the petition without assessing the case's merits.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court found the High Court's approach contrary to law and directed the restoration of the appellant’s case for a merits-based review.
Issues: Was the High Court's dismissal of the appellant’s petition without merit consideration justified?
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court emphasized the necessity for the High Court to evaluate the case on its merits, correcting the prior judicial oversight.
Result: Appeal allowed.
(B) High Court's failure - The court did not address the merits of the appellant’s case. (Paras 4, 5)
(C) Remand for consideration - The Supreme Court restored the appellant's case for merit consideration while extending interim relief until a specified date. (Paras 5, 7)
Facts of the case:
The appellant filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash an FIR. The High Court dismissed the petition without assessing the case's merits.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court found the High Court's approach contrary to law and directed the restoration of the appellant’s case for a merits-based review.
Issues: Was the High Court's dismissal of the appellant’s petition without merit consideration justified?
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court emphasized the necessity for the High Court to evaluate the case on its merits, correcting the prior judicial oversight.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Chinmoy Khaladkar, Abhinav Agnihotri, Salonee Paranjape, B.K. Pal.
For the Respondents: Yashraj Singh Bundela, Vishnu Kant, Pawan, Jyoti Verma, Devesh Pratap Singh, Rahul Kulhare, Tanishq Tyagi, Kaustubh Anshuraj, Sanjay Tyagi, Yashish Chandra.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Chinmoy Khaladkar, Abhinav Agnihotri, Salonee Paranjape, B.K. Pal.
For the Respondents: Yashraj Singh Bundela, Vishnu Kant, Pawan, Jyoti Verma, Devesh Pratap Singh, Rahul Kulhare, Tanishq Tyagi, Kaustubh Anshuraj, Sanjay Tyagi, Yashish Chandra.
Table of Contents
2. Challenge against High Court's refusal to consider quashing petition on merits and directions regarding investigation procedure. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. High Court's failure to consider merits and its direction to the Investigating Officer to allow the accused to explain material before the final report are contrary to law. (Para 3 , 4 )
4. Petitions for quashing an FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be decided on merits; directions to the Investigating Officer to allow explanations before the final report are unlawful. (Para 3 )
5. Impugned order set aside — petition restored to High Court for decision on merits — interim relief extended. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 9 )
6. Can a High Court reject a petition for quashing an FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. without considering the merits of the case?
No. The court held that rejecting such a petition without going into the merits of the case is an improper approach. (Para 3 , 4 )
7. Is it legally valid for a court to direct an Investigating Officer to allow an accused to explain material collected during investigation before submitting the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.?
No. The court observed that such an approach is strange and contrary to law. (Para 3 )
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the parties.
3. The prayer made by the appellant before the High Court in a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) was for quashing the First Information Report. By the impugned order, the High Court has rejected the said petition without going into the merits of the case made out by the appellant. Strangely, the High Court has observed that the Investigating Officer will give opportunity to the appellant to explain the material collected against him during the investigation before submission of the final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. To say the least, such approach is very strange and contrary to law.
4. In any case, the appellant's case on merits has not been considered by the High Court.
5. Hence, by setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 12th April, 2023, we restore Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 13012 of 2023 before the High Court.
6. We direct the Registrar (Judicial) of the Madhya Pradesh High Court to list the restored petition before the roster Bench on 8th December, 2023 in the morning. The parties shall appear before the roster Bench on that day.
7. To enable the High Court to consider the case on merits, we extend the interim relief granted by this Court on 18th August, 2023 till 8th January, 2024 with a liberty to the appellant to apply to the High Court for continuation of interim relief in the event the remanded case is not decided till 8th January, 2024. The High Court will decide the case of the petitioner on merits without being influenced by the interim relief granted by this Court.
8. All contentions are left open, to be considered by the High Court.
9. The appeal is accordingly allowed on the above terms.
