High Court Must Apply Its Mind To Materials In Police Report Before Deciding To Quash FIR : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on October 14 held that a petition to quash criminal proceedings does not become infructuous on submission of a police report. 

A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra held that when a police report has been submitted, particularly when there is no stay on the investigation, the Court "must apply its mind to the materials submitted in support of the police report" before taking a call on whether the proceedings should be quashed or not.

"No doubt, a petition to quash the FIR does not become infructuous on submission of a police report under Section 173 (2) of the CrPC, but when a police report has been submitted, particularly when there is no stay on the investigation, the Court must apply its mind to the materials submitted in support of the police report before taking a call whether the FIR and consequential proceedings should be quashed or not. More so, when the FIR alleges an act which is reflective of a dishonest conduct of the accused."

In this case, the High Court quashed the FIR and all proceedings against the accused person. While doing so, it did not peruse the materials collected during the investigation in support of the police report.

Brief facts

A complainant has filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) against accused persons no. 2 and 3 for not paying the rent including arrears amounting to Rs. 12,49,780.

The complainant had entered into an agreement with the accused persons for a plying truck between Tata Steel Jamshedpur and Kalinganagar for monthly rent. However, after a month's recent, they did not pay the recent and the location of the truck remains unknown.

Pursuant to the application, the judicial magistrate directed the police to institute a case and investigate Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

During the investigation, notices under Section 41A CrPC were sent but since the accused did not appear, the police were allowed to issue a non-bailable warrant. 

Against this, the accused persons applied under Section 482 to quash the order allowing the non-bailable warrant and including all proceedings instituted against them. While this was pending before the High Court, the judicial magistrate took cognisance of the police report and processes were issued under Section 204 CrPC.

Subsequently, they also sought quashing of the cognisance order.

What did the High Court held?

The High Court quashed the order of cognisance and all further proceedings but left it open to the complainant to take recourse to civil remedies. It held that the application filed by the complainant is only for recovery of recent, which can be realised through appropriate civil proceedings. Hence, no offence is made out under Section 420 IPC.

The High Court reasoned that there is no allegation of entrustment in the FIR, therefore, Section 406 IPC is not made out. Also, since they paid one month recent, it cannot be held that there was dishonest intention from the very beginning. 

Against the order of the High Court, the complainant (now appellant) approached the Supreme Court.

What did the Supreme Court say?

The judgment authored by Justice Manoj Misra at the outset stated that the parameter to assess whether the criminal proceedings are to be quashed at the threshold or not, the allegations in the FIR, police report or the complaint including the materials collected during the investigation or inquiry are to be "taken at their face value". That is, "whether a prima facie case for investigation or proceeding against the accused, as the case may be, is made out."

The Court added that the correctness of the allegations is not to be tested at this stage.

Based on this, the Court considered that the accused persons failed to pay hire charges for months together while making false promises for payment. This is prima facie reflective of dishonest intention. Therefore, requires to be investigated.

The Court arrived at this conclusion by considering the existence of mens rea. It said: "Existence of mens rea is a question of fact which may be inferred from the act in question as well as the surrounding circumstances and conduct of the accused".

Therefore, it held: "In such circumstances, if the FIR is quashed at the very inception, it would be nothing short of an act which thwarts a legitimate investigation."

The Court added that test to determine whether an FIR discloses the commission of a cognisable offence, "what is to be looked at is not any omission in the accusations but the gravamen of the accusations contained therein to find out whether, prima facie, some cognizable offence has been committed or not." 

It stated that at this stage, the Court is not required to ascertain as to which specific offence has been committed. The Court noted: "It is only after investigation, at the time of framing charge, when materials collected during investigation are before the Court, the Court has to draw an opinion as to for commission of which offence the accused should be tried. Prior to that, if satisfied, the Court may even discharge the accused.

Thus, when the FIR alleges a dishonest conduct on the part of the accused which, if supported by materials, would disclose commission of a cognizable offence, investigation should not be thwarted by quashing the FIR."

The Court added that the 482 petition does not become infructuous on submission of police report and the Court must apply its mind to the material submitted in support of the police report, especially when the FIR alleges an act which is reflective of a dishonest conduct of the accused. 

Based on this, the Court arrived at a conclusion the whereabouts of the truck is a matter of investigation. It said: " If it had been dishonestly disposed of by the accused, it may make out a case of criminal breach of trust. Therefore, there was no justification to quash the FIR at the threshold without looking into the materials collected during the course of the investigation."

On August 19, the Court sought the State to produce chargesheet filed in this case. But the case was not produced. An affidavit was filed by the State which only indicates that it was not able to trace the truck. Considering this, the Supreme Court remitted the matter to the High Court to decide the quashing petition after considering the police report. 

Appearances : Advocates Konark Tyagi for Complainant and Rahul Shyam Bhandari for Accused

Case Details: Somjeet Mallick v. State of Jharkhand & Ors 

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 797

Click Here To Read Order