Improper To Quash FIR U/s 482 CrPC When There Are Serious Triable Allegations In Complaint, Reiterates Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that it is improper to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code when there are serious triable allegations in the complaint.

Appreciation of evidence is not permissible at the stage of quashing of proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482  CrPC, the Supreme Court reiterated while setting aside a High Court judgment.

In this case, pursuant to direction of Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC, the police registered FIR against the accused under Sections 147, 148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC. The complaint pertained to non-execution of a sale deed. The accused approached the High Court seeking quashing of FIR and entire criminal proceedings alleging that the same has been lodged only with a view to pressurize the accused handover the plot to the complainant. The High Court allowed the petition.

In appeal, the appellant-complainant contended that the High Court has entered into the merits of the allegations at the stage of quashing proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. He referred to the judgments in Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat, (2018) 3 SCC 104; Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar vs. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 18 SCC 191.

The court reiterated that exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings is an exception and not a rule and the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. though wide is to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution, only when such exercise is justified by tests specifically laid down in section itself. Appreciation of evidence is not permissible at the stage of quashing of proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the court added.

"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 the merits of the allegations and/or enter into the merits of the case as if the High Court is exercising the appellate jurisdiction and/or conducting the trial. As held by this Court in the case of Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel (Supra) in order to examine as to whether factual contents of FIR disclose any cognizable offence or not, the High Court cannot act like the Investigating agency nor can exercise the powers like an Appellate Court. It is further observed and held that question is required to be examined keeping in view, the contents of FIR and prima facie material, if any, requiring no proof. At such stage, the High Court cannot appreciate evidence nor can it draw its own inferences from contents of FIR and material relied on. It is further observed it is more so, when the material relied on is disputed. It is further observed that in such a situation, it becomes the job of the Investigating Authority at such stage to probe and then of the Court to examine questions once the charge-sheet is filed along with such material as to how far and to what extent reliance can be placed on such material.", the bench observed.

Taking note of the facts alleged in the complaint and FIR, the bench observed that all triable issues/allegations which are required to be considered at the time of trial. The High Court has grossly erred in quashing the criminal proceedings by entering into the merits of the allegations as if the High Court was exercising the appellate jurisdiction and/or conducting the trial, the bench said while setting aside the High court judgment.

Case: Kaptan Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh; CrA 787 OF 2021

Citation: LL 2021 SC 379

Coram: Justices DY Chandrachud, MR Shah

Counsel: Adv Santosh Kumar Pandey for appellant, Adv Ankit Goel, Adv Amit Kumar Singh for respondents

Click here to Read/Download Judgment