2021 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 44902

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Manisha Batra, J
P. Paramasivam Mahalingam – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent
CRM-M-28636-2021 | CRM-M-32624-2021 | CRM-M-32887-2021

The High Court should not quash a First Information Report under its inherent powers if it prima facie discloses a cognizable offence, even if the dispute involves civil elements, as police investigation should not be scuttled at the initial stage unless the proceedings are inherently improbable.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 - Quashing of First Information Report - Inherent powers of High Court - Scope and ambit - Powers for quashing at initial stage are to be exercised in exceptional and extraordinary circumstances where allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose commission of any cognizable offence - Courts should not thwart investigation into cognizable offences; functions of judiciary and police are complementary - High Court should not embark upon inquiry as to reliability or genuineness of allegations at this stage - Pendency of civil litigation cannot act as a bar to investigation of cognizable offence. (Paras 15, 16, 17, 37)

(B) Criminal Procedure - Territorial jurisdiction - Investigation of crime - Question of territorial jurisdiction revolves around place of commission of offence or where consequences ensue - At stage of investigation, it cannot be held that investigating officer lacks jurisdiction to probe - Situs or part of offence cannot be unilaterally determined without completion of investigation. (Paras 30, 31)

(C) Criminal Procedure - Transfer of investigation - Power to transfer investigation to independent agency - To be exercised sparingly, cautiously, and in exceptional circumstances to ensure credibility and confidence in investigation - Accused cannot insist that an offence be investigated by a particular agency. (Paras 39, 40, 41)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners approached the High Court seeking quashing of an First Information Report registered for various offences including cheating, criminal breach of trust, and forgery, alleging that the dispute was purely of a civil nature arising out of a loan transaction. It was contended that the petitioners had no dishonest intention, that no entrustment of property occurred, and that the police lacked territorial jurisdiction to investigate.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the First Information Report prima facie disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence under the provision for cheating given the allegations of suppression of material facts and misrepresentation regarding existing security interests. The court observed that civil and criminal remedies are concurrent and that the police must be permitted to complete the investigation.

Issues: Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent powers to quash the proceedings at the initial stage and whether the dispute could be categorized as purely civil, thereby barring criminal prosecution.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that inherent powers under Section 482 are not to be used to stifle legitimate prosecution. Since the complaint disclosed the prima facie elements of a cognizable offence, it was the duty of the investigating agency to proceed with the inquiry, and the court refused to interfere at the nascent stage of investigation.

Result: Petitions dismissed.