Point of Law: 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.

JUDGMENT :

(Satyen Vaidya, J.)

1. By way of instant petition, petitioners have prayed for quashing of FIR No.143 of 2020, dated 01.05.2020 under Sections 451, 323, 504, 506, 509, 269 and 34 of IPC, registered at Police Station, Chamba alongwith consequential criminal proceedings arising therefrom.

2. It is averred in the petition that no prima facie case is made out from the bare reading of FIR No.143 of 2020. In Fact, FIR No. 143 of 2020 was nothing, but a counter-blast to FIR No. 140 of 2020 registered against respondents No. 2 and 3 on 30.4.2020 at the instance of petitioner No.1. It is further submitted that there is a pending civil litigation between the parties and respondent No.2 has reported a false case against petitioners with ulterior purposes.

3. Respondent No.1/State has filed reply and has contested the averments made in the petition being wrong and incorrect. It is submitted that the investigation was carried after registration of FIR No. 143 of 2020. Sufficient evidence was found against the petitioners and the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has been submitted in the court of competent jurisdiction, where the petitioners are facing trial.

4. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 also apprised the Court that the charges have already been framed against the petitioners by learned trial Court and trial has commenced.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully.

6. Petitioners have approached this Court by way of instant petition at a stage when report under Section (2) Cr.P.C. had already been submitted. Except for a copy of FIR No. 143 of 2020, no other record pertaining to investigation and report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also not been able to rebut the fact disclosed by learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 that charges have already been framed against the petitioners.

7. Defining the contours of the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C; in the cases where the investigating agency after completion of investigation has submitted the report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C; Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kaptan Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2021) 9 SCC 35 has held as under:

9.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present case the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has quashed the criminal proceedings for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 of IPC. It is required to be noted that when the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashed the criminal proceedings, by the time the Investigating Officer after recording the statement of the witnesses, statement of the complainant and collecting the evidence from the incident place and after taking statement of the independent witnesses and even statement of the accused persons, has filed the charge-sheet before the Learned Magistrate for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 of IPC and even the learned Magistrate also took the cognizance. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it does not appear that the High Court took into consideration the material collected during the investigation/inquiry and even the statements recorded. If the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was at the stage of FIR in that case the allegations in the 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 the statements are recorded, evidence is collected and the charge-sheet is filed after conclusion of the investigation/inquiry the matter stands on different footing and the Court is required to consider the material/evidence collected during the investigation. Even at this stage also, as observed and held by this Court in catena of decisions, the High Court is not required to go into th