1. Mutual allegations of taking money for securing employment — FIR filed for cheating — Petition for quashing of criminal proceedings. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 138
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Vikram Nath, Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.
Deepak Kumar Shrivas & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1007 of 2024 @ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9800 of 2023
Decided On : 19-02-2024
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Police should exercise heightened caution when drawn into dispute pertaining to such unethical transactions between private parties which appear to be prima facie contentious in light of previous inquiries or investigations – Need for vigilance on part of police is paramount and a discerning eye should be cast upon cases where unscrupulous conduct appears to eclipse pursuit of justice.
(2) Such criminal prosecution should not be allowed to continue where object to lodge FIR is not for criminal prosecution and for punishing offender for offence committed but for recovery of money under coercion and pressure.
(1) Police should exercise heightened caution when drawn into dispute pertaining to such unethical transactions between private parties which appear to be prima facie contentious in light of previous inquiries or investigations – Need for vigilance on part of police is paramount and a discerning eye should be cast upon cases where unscrupulous conduct appears to eclipse pursuit of justice.
(2) Such criminal prosecution should not be allowed to continue where object to lodge FIR is not for criminal prosecution and for punishing offender for offence committed but for recovery of money under coercion and pressure.
Subject
Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR
Act Referred
Headnote
Constitution of India – Article 226 – Quashing petition – Both parties accusing each other of having extracted money for securing job for their relatives – It was totally an unlawful contract between parties where money was being paid for securing a job in government department(s) or private sector – Suit for recovery could not have been filed for said purpose and even if it could be filed, it could be difficult to establish the same where payment was entirely in cash – Prima facie, conduct exhibited by parties involved appears tainted with suspicion, casting a shadow over veracity of their claims – Report from the previous inquiry reflects a convoluted landscape and unveils a trail of unethical, maybe even criminal, behaviour from both parties – Unexplained inordinate delay in bringing these allegations to attention of Police despite knowledge of previous inquiry, raises even more doubts and adds a layer of scepticism to authenticity of claims – Police should exercise heightened caution when drawn into dispute pertaining to such unethical transactions between private parties which appear to be prima facie contentious in light of previous inquiries or investigations – Need for vigilance on part of police is paramount and a discerning eye should be cast upon cases where unscrupulous conduct appears to eclipse pursuit of justice – Such criminal prosecution should not be allowed to continue where object to lodge FIR is not for criminal prosecution and for punishing offender for offence committed but for recovery of money under coercion and pressure – Impugned order passed by High Court set aside and entire proceedings quashed. (Paras 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17)
Facts of the case:
As a law enforcement agency, police force shoulders vital responsibility of preserving public order, guarding social harmony, and upholding the foundations of justice. However, current case, full of counter-accusations of financial impropriety and broken promises, highlights complex matters that occasionally make their way into the hands of police force.
Appellant filed petition under Article 226 of Constitution before High Court of Chhattisgarh for quashing FIR and proceedings arising therefrom. Said petition has since been dismissed by impugned order giving rise to filing of present appeal.
Findings of Court:
Need for vigilance on the part of police is paramount, and a discerning eye should be cast upon cases where unscrupulous conduct appears to eclipse the pursuit of justice. This case exemplifies need for a circumspect approach in discerning the genuine from spurious and thus ensuring that resources of state are utilised for matters of true societal import.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Judgement Key Points
Key Points: - Police should exercise heightened caution when drawn into disputes involving unethical transactions between private parties that are prima facie contentious in light of previous inquiries or investigations. (!) - Criminal prosecution should not be allowed to continue where the object of lodging the FIR is not for criminal prosecution and punishing an offence, but for recovery of money under coercion and pressure. (!) - The conduct of both parties was tainted with suspicion, the prior inquiry revealed unethical behaviour from both sides, and the unexplained inordinate delay in filing the FIR raised doubts about authenticity. (!) - The transaction was an unlawful contract for securing a job, making a civil suit for recovery unsustainable, and the FIR was used as a medium to recover tainted money under threat. (!) - The appeal was allowed, the impugned High Court order set aside, and the entire proceedings arising from the FIR were quashed. (!)
What is the standard for quashing criminal proceedings when an FIR appears to be lodged for recovery of money under coercion rather than for genuine prosecution?
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Sameer Shrivastava, AOR Ms. Yashika Varshney, Adv. Dr. Sangeeta Verma, Adv. Ms. Priyanka Shrivastava, Adv. Mr. Niteen Sinha, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Gautam Narayan, AOR [ Mr. Sachin Patil, Adv. Mr. Kailas Bajirao Autade, AOR Mr. Jeet Patel, Adv. Mr. Sunil Kumar Sethi, Adv. Mr. Apoorv Shukla, AOR Mr. Puneet Chahar, Adv. Mr./Ms. Prabhleen A. Shukla, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Sameer Shrivastava, AOR Ms. Yashika Varshney, Adv. Dr. Sangeeta Verma, Adv. Ms. Priyanka Shrivastava, Adv. Mr. Niteen Sinha, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Gautam Narayan, AOR [ Mr. Sachin Patil, Adv. Mr. Kailas Bajirao Autade, AOR Mr. Jeet Patel, Adv. Mr. Sunil Kumar Sethi, Adv. Mr. Apoorv Shukla, AOR Mr. Puneet Chahar, Adv. Mr./Ms. Prabhleen A. Shukla, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Appellant alleges mala fide FIR as a counterblast and delayed filing — State contends cognizable offence disclosed and necessity of investigation. (Para 8 , 9 )
3. Unexplained inordinate delay in filing FIR — mutual unethical conduct — use of criminal machinery to recover money from an unlawful contract. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 )
4. Criminal prosecution should be quashed if the FIR is lodged mala fide for recovery of money under coercion rather than for punishing an offence. (Para 16 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court order set aside — criminal proceedings arising out of the FIR quashed. (Para 17 )
6. When can an FIR be quashed based on the motive of the complainant?
An FIR can be quashed when it is evident that the proceedings are initiated not to punish an offence, but as a mala fide attempt to recover money through coercion and pressure. (Para 14 , 16 )
7. How does an unexplained delay in filing an FIR affect the proceedings?
An inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging an FIR, especially when the complainant had prior knowledge of the dispute, casts doubt on the authenticity of the claims and suggests mala fide intentions. (Para 11 , 12 , 14 )
8. What is the court's view on using criminal law to resolve disputes arising from unlawful contracts?
The court observes that criminal machinery should not be exploited to recover money from unlawful contracts, as such disputes are unethical and divert law enforcement resources from matters of societal importance. (Para 2 , 13 , 14 , 15 )
JUDGMENT :
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. As a law enforcement agency, the police force shoulders the vital responsibility of preserving public order, guarding social harmony, and upholding the foundations of justice. However, the current case, full of counter-accusations of financial impropriety and broken promises, highlights the complex matters that occasionally make their way into the hands of the police force. Beyond the immediate contours of the case, a broader question emerges regarding the balancing of interests that ought to be done between addressing unscrupulous private grievances and safeguarding public interests. From the counter-allegations levelled against each other between the parties in the present case, it becomes evident that the police finds itself entangled in the irrelevant and trivial details of such unethical private issues, diverting the resources away from the pursuit of more consequential matters. The valuable time of the police is consumed in investigating disputes that seem more suited for civil resolution. This underscores the need for a judicious allocation of law enforcement resources, emphasizing the importance of channelling their efforts towards matters of greater societal consequence.
3. By means of this appeal, challenge is to the correctness of the judgment and order dated 11.07.2023 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh in WPCR No.703 of 2022 dismissing the writ petition of the appellant for quashing the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR bearing Crime No.248 of 2022.
4. Relevant facts for deciding the present appeal are as follows:
a) The appellant made a complaint dated 06.04.2021 to the Collector, District Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) alleging that the respondent no.6 (Rajkumari Maravi) had allured the appellant that she would secure a job for his brother-Raj Kumar Shivas as she had good contacts with higher officers and demanded substantial amount for doing this favour. The appellant got allured and paid Rs.80,000/- cash at the first instance. Later on an additional demand was made and, according to the complaint made by the appellant, he has thereafter deposited about Rs.20,000/- and odd in different bank accounts, details of which were provided by respondent no.6. When nothing happened and no job was provided to his brother, he approached the respondent no.6 for returning the money paid by him upon which she threatened him of false implication and later on she stopped responding to his calls and started avoiding him.
b) The Collector apparently referred the said complaint dated 06.04.2021 to the Superintendent of Police of the District Janjgir-Champa for enquiry. The enquiry is alleged to be entrusted by the Superintendent of Police to the Station House Officer, Police Station Shakti, District Janjgir-Champa. The Station House Officer made detailed enquiries and also recorded the statements of the appellant, respondent no.6 and other persons who were sought to be referred to as witnesses and ultimately submitted the report to the Superintendent of Police on 25.07.2021.
c) The report mentioned interesting facts, according to which, both the parties i.e. appellant and respondent no.6 were accusing each other of having extracted money for securing job for their relatives. As already stated, the appellant was trying to secure a job for his brother whereas, according to respondent no.6, the appellant had taken about Rs.4 lacs from her for securing a job for her daughter. In the enquiry it was also found that when no job was provided by the appellant to her daughter, the appellant returned some amount by depositing it in her bank account. Both the parties had alleged that false complaints were being made against each other. Interestingly when in the enquiry the Station House Officer required the appellant and respondent no.6 to produce the relevant documents and also the details of the call records and recorded conversations, they failed to provide any su
