The central legal point established in the judgment is the need for sparing exercise of power to quash FIRs, the requirement to take complainant's averments at face value, and the necessity of completing investigations before considering the quashing of criminal proceedings.

G. P. Mittal, J.-

(ORAL) CRL M.A.1220/2013 (Exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The Application is allowed CRL. M.C. 379/2013

1. The Petitioners invoke inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) for setting aside of the order dated 04.12.2012 whereby the Revision Petition against the summoning order dated 30.06.2011 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (‘MM’) was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (‘ASJ’). The Petitioners grievance is that they (the Petitioners) were not aware of the order dated 30.06.2011 passed by the learned ‘MM’ and therefore, the delay in filing Revision Petition ought to have been condoned and the Petition ought to have been heard on merits.

2. Although, the Petitioners are primarily aggrieved by the order dated 30.06.2011 whereby the learned ‘MM’ ordered summoning of the Petitioners for offence punishable under Sections 323/341/354/506/34 of IPC and by the order dated 23.07.2012 whereby the learned ‘MM’ held the Petitioners to be served with summons in Complaint Case No.120/2001 when they (the Petitioners) appeared in another case under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

3. It is well settled that the power of quashing of FIR or a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly with circumspection and in rare cases. The Court is not justified in embarking upon an inquiry as to the reliability, genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR.

4. In State of M.P. v. Awadh Kishore Gupta (2004) 1 SCC 691, it was held that where the investigation was not complete, it was impermissible for the High Court to look into the materials the acceptability of which is essentially a matter for trial. The Supreme Court observed that the Court should not go into annexures of the Petition under Section 482 of the Code which cannot be termed as evidence without being tested and proved. Para 13 of the report is extracted hereunder:-

“13. It is to be noted that the investigation was not complete and at that stage it was impermissible for the High Court to look into materials, the acceptability of which is essentially a matter for trial. While exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, it is not permissible for the Court to act as if it was a trial Judge. Even when charge is framed at that stage, the Court has to only prima facie be satisfied about existence of sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. For that limited purpose, the Court can evaluate material and documents on records but it cannot appreciate evidence. The Court is not required to appreciate evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. In Chand Dhawan v. Jawahar Lal (1992) 3 SCC 317 it was observed that when the materials relied upon by a party are required to be proved, no inference can be drawn on the basis of those materials to conclude the complaint to be unacceptable. The Court should not act on annexures to the petitions under Section 482 of the Code, which cannot be termed as evidence without being tested and proved. When the factual position of the case at hand is considered in the light of principles of law highlighted, the inevitable conclusion is that the High Court was not justified in quashing the investigation and proceedings in the connected case (Crime No. 116 of 1994) registered by the Special Police Establishment, Lokayukta, Gwalior…….”

5. In a recent report of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa & Ors. v. Ujjal Kumar Burdhan (2012) 4 SCC 547, the investigation initiated by the Vigilance Department of the State Govt. of Orissa into allegations of irregularities in receipt of excess quota, recycling of rice and distress sale of paddy by one M/s. Haldipada Rice Mill, Proprietorship concern of the Respondent was quashed by the High Court. The Supreme Court reversed the order passed by the High Court and observed that