Courts should exercise quashing powers sparingly and allow reasonable time for investigation before considering quashing criminal proceedings.

ORDER :

1. As per the office report, the respondents are served. None is present on behalf of the respondents.

2. Leave granted.

3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 14.12.2021 passed by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in Crl. O.P. No. 19872 of 2021, by which the High Court has allowed the said application filed by the accused under Section 482, CrPC and caused the criminal proceedings for the offences under Sections 124A, 153A, 504, 505(1)(b) and 505(2) of the IPC, the State has preferred the present appeal.

4. Mr. Sanjay Hegde, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court quashing and setting aside the criminal proceedings in exercise of the powers under Section 482, CrPC is just contrary to the decision of this Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Another v. Akhil Sharda & Other; reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 820 as well as the reported decision of this Court in the case of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd v. State of Maharashtra & Others; reported in (2020) 10 SCC 180. It is submitted by learned counsel that in the present case, the High Court, while quashing the criminal proceedings, has exceeded in its jurisdiction while exercising the powers under Section 482, CrPC.

5. It is further submitted that by the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has exercised the powers as if the High Court was conducting the trial which as such is not permissible while exercising the powers under Section 482, CrPC at the stage of the consideration for quashing the criminal proceedings under Section 482, CrPC.

6. It is further submitted that even without giving any sufficient time to the Investigating Agency to complete the investigation and/or even to conduct the investigation in a great hurry, the criminal proceedings are quashed. It is submitted that in the present case, the FIR was lodged on 09.12.2021, the quashing petition was filed on the very next date i.e. 10.12.2021 and the High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings within a period of four days i.e. on 14.12.2021. By making the above statement, it is prayed to allow the present appeal.

7. We have heard Mr. Sanjay Kapadia, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant at length and we have gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings for the offences under Sections 124A, 153A, 504, 505(1)(b) and 505(2) of the IPC in exercise of powers under Section 482, CrPC.

8. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and the reasoning given by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings as if the High Court was conducting the mini trial. The scope and ambiguity of powers to be exercised under Section 482, CrPC has been elaborately dealt with and considered by this Court in the case of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra). In para 57, it is observed and held as under:-

“From the aforesaid decisions of this Court, right from the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Khawaja Nazir Ahmad (supra), the following principles of law emerge:

(i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into cognizable offences;

(ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences;

(iii) However, in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report the Court will not permit an investigation to go on;

(iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the ‘rarest of rare cases’. (The rarest of rare cases standard in its application for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be confused with the norm which has been formulated in the context of