Section 482 CrPC : Supreme Court Judgments On High Courts' Power [2021]

[Case: Ravuri Krishna Murthy v. State of Telangana; Citation: LL 2021 SC 150]

A Bench comprising of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah observed that a blanket order of protection from arrest cannot be passed by the High Court while dismissing a petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR. The issue raised in this appeal was whether the High Court of Andhra Pradesh was justified in passing a blanket direction restraining the police from arresting the accused while at the same time having come to the conclusion that there was no merit in the petition for quashing under Section 482.

Mere Existence Of Civil Remedies Not A Ground To Quash Criminal Proceedings: Reiterates Supreme court

[Case: Priti Saraf v. State Of NCT Of Delhi; Citation: LL 2021 SC 154]

A bench comprising of Justices Indu Malhotra and Ajay Rastogi observed that existence of civil remedies by itself is not a ground to quash criminal proceedings. It observed that simply because there is a remedy provided for breach of contract or arbitral proceedings initiated at the instance of the complainant, that does not by itself clothe the court to come to a conclusion that civil remedy is the only remedy, and the initiation of criminal proceedings, in any manner, will be an abuse of the process of the court for exercising inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC for quashing such proceedings.

The bench said that to exercise powers under Section 482 CrPC, the complaint in its entirety shall have to be examined on the basis of the allegation made in the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet and the High Court at that stage was not under an obligation to go into the matter or examine its correctness.

[Case: M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra; Citation: LL 2021 SC 211]

A bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud, MR Shah and Sanjiv Khanna held that a High Court, while dismissing/disposing of the quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, shall not pass order of not to arrest and/or "no coercive steps" either during the investigation or till the investigation is completed and/or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 CrPC.

It observed that when the investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy and the entire evidence/material is not before the High Court, the High Court should restrain itself from passing the interim order of not to arrest or "no coercive steps to be adopted" and the accused should be relegated to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC before the competent court.

Power Under Section 482 CrPC Cannot Be Used To Undermine Statutory Dictate Under Section 14, 17 IBC: Supreme Court

[Case: Case: Sandeep Khaitan, Resolution Professional For National Plywood Industries Ltd. v. JSVM Plywood Industries Ltd.; Citation: LL 2021 SC 228]

The power under Section 482 of CrPC cannot be used to overlook the undermining of a statutory dictate, a Bench comprising of Justices UU Lalit and KM Joseph observed.

In this case, the High Court allowed an interlocutory application filed by a Company claiming to be an operational creditor to allow it to operate its bank account maintained with the ICICI Bank and to unfreeze the bank account of its creditors over which the lien has been created and the accounts frozen pursuant to the lodging of an FIR by the Interim Resolution Professional. "We have to also in this context bear in mind that the High Court appears to have, in passing the impugned order, which is an interim order for that matter, overlooked the salutary limits on its power under Section 482. The power under Section 482 may not be available to the Court to countenance the breach of a statuary provision. The words 'to secure the ends of justice' in Section 482 cannot mean to overlook the undermining of a statutory dictate, which in this case is the provisions of Section 14, and Section 17 of the IBC", the bench observed.

Dismissal Of An Earlier Section 482 CPC Petition Does Not Bar Filing Of Subsequent Petition, If Facts So Justify

[Case: Vinod Kumar IAS v. Union of India; Citation: LL 2021 SC 281]

Dismissal of an earlier Section 482 CrPC petition does not bar filing of subsequent petition under Section 482, in case the facts so justify, the Supreme Court reiterated while dismissing a writ petition filed by an IAS Officer. The Bench comprising Justice UU Lalit and Justices Indira Banerjee and Ajay Rastogi observed that it sees no reason to entertain the petition under Article 32. "The petitioner, if so advised, can always file appropriate applications under the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of the individual criminal cases or complaints", the bench further opined.

Section 482 CrPC: Interim Protection Order Can Be Passed In Exceptional Cases Giving Brief Reasons

[Case: A P Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank Shareholders Welfare Association v. Ramesh Kumar Bung; Citation: LL 2021 SC 309]

The Supreme Court observed that the High Courts can pass interim protection order in Section 482 CrPC petitions in exceptional cases by giving brief reasons. What is frowned upon in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra is the tendency of the courts to pass blanket, cryptic, laconic, nonspeaking orders reading "no coercive steps shall be adopted", the bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian said.

Quashing Of FIR: Detailed Enquiry On Merits Not Warranted U/s 482 CrPC

[Case: State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kunwar Singh; Citation: LL 2021 SC 344]

The Supreme Court has reiterated that a detailed enquiry into the merits of the allegations is not warranted while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah observed that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the High Court ought not to be scrutinizing the material in the manner in which the trial court would do in the course of the criminal trial after evidence is adduced.

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

[Case: Kaptan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh; Citation: LL 2021 SC 379]

The Supreme Court has 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 Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah reiterated while setting aside a High Court judgment.

Section 482 CrPC: High Court Not Required To Appreciate Evidence To Find Out Whether Accused Is Likely To Be Convicted Or Not

[Case: Saranya v. Bharati; Citation: LL 2021 SC 402]

The Supreme Court reiterated that, at Section 482 CrPC stage, a High Court is not required to appreciate the evidence to find out whether the accused is likely to be convicted or not. A Bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah observed, "The High Court has entered into the appreciation of the evidence and considered whether on the basis of the evidence, the accused is likely to be convicted or not, which as such is not permissible at all at this stage while considering the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C."

Section 482 CrPC: High Court Not Required To Appreciate Evidence To Find Out Whether Accused Is Likely To Be Convicted Or Not

[Case: Saranya v. Bharati; Citation: LL 2021 SC 402]

The Supreme Court reiterated that, at Section 482 CrPC stage, a High Court is not required to appreciate the evidence to find out whether the accused is likely to be convicted or not. A Bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah observed, "The High Court has entered into the appreciation of the evidence and considered whether on the basis of the evidence, the accused is likely to be convicted or not, which as such is not permissible at all at this stage while considering the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C."

Non Compoundable' Criminal Cases Of Predominantly Private Nature Can Be Quashed U/s 482 CrPC Even If Compromise Is Reached After Conviction

[Case: Ramgopal v. State of Madhya Pradesh; Citation: LL 2021 SC 516]

The Supreme Court observed that a High Court can quash criminal proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the offences are non-compoundable and the compromise is reached after conviction. The bench comprising CJI NV Ramana and Justice Surya Kant added that criminal proceedings involving non-­heinous offences or where the offences are predominantly of a private nature, can be quashed irrespective of the fact that trial has already been concluded or appeal stands dismissed against conviction.

Civil Dispute Given Colour Of Criminal Offence: Supreme Court Says Criminal Proceedings Should Not Become Weapons Of Harassment

[Case: Randheer Singh v. State of UP; Citation: LL 2021 SC 574]

Dispute of a civil nature has been given colour of criminal offence, the Supreme Court has observed in a judgment while it quashed criminal proceedings initiated against a property purchaser. The bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari observed that while considering a petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings, the High Court should examine whether a complaint discloses criminal offence or not depends on the nature of the allegation and whether the essential ingredients of a criminal offence are present or not. Section 482 is designed to achieve the purpose of ensuring that criminal proceedings are not permitted to generate into weapons of harassment, the court reiterated. In this case, an FIR was lodged against the power of attorney of the complainant and the purchaser of the property. Examining the FIR, the court observed that the criminal proceedings are being taken recourse to as a weapon of harassment against the purchaser.

Offences Under Special Statutes Including SC/ST Act Can Also Be Quashed By Exercising Powers U/S 482 CrPC/ Article 142

[Case: Ramawatar v. State of Madhya Pradesh; Citation: LL 2021 SC 589]

The Supreme Court observed that criminal proceedings arising out of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 can be quashed invoking powers under Article 142 of Constitution or Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code. "The mere fact that the offence is covered under a 'special statute' would not refrain this Court or the High Court, from exercising their respective powers under Article 142 of the Constitution or Section 482 CrPC", a three judges bench comprising CJI NV Ramana, Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli observed. The Bench opined, "where it appears to the Court that the offence in question, although covered under the SC/ST Act, is primarily private or civil in nature, or where the alleged offence has not been committed on account of the caste of the victim, or where the continuation of the legal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law, the Court can exercise its powers to quash the proceedings."

Criminal Cases Having Overwhelmingly & Predominatingly A Civil Flavour Stands On Different Footing For Purpose Of Quashing

[Case: Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab; Citation: LL 2021 SC 623]

The allegations made in the FIR had an overwhelmingly and predominatingly a civil flavour, the Supreme Court remarked while quashing a criminal proceeding. The bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath observed that inherent powers should be exercised in a given and deserving case where the Court is satisfied that exercise of such power would either prevent abuse of such power or such exercise would result in securing the ends of justice. In this case, the complainant alleged that he had paid money to the accused to get employment for his son abroad. That they did not honour their promise and harassed his son and did not arrange for a job as per their promise. The High Court dismissed the petition filed by the accused and declined to quash the proceedings on the ground that a perusal of the FIR goes to show that the name of the accused is specifically mentioned in the FIR and criminal acts have been attributed to him. "In our view, the present one is amongst those fittest cases where the High Court ought to have exercised its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and ought to have secured the ends of justice by closing the proceedings against the appellants", the Apex Court noted.

High Court Cannot Quash Criminal Proceedings U/Sec 482 CrPC Relying On 'Draft Charge Sheet' Which Is Yet To Be Filed Before Magistrate

[Case: Jitul Jentilal Kotecha v. State of Gujarat; Citation: LL 2021 SC 642]

A High Court cannot place reliance on a "draft charge-sheet" which is yet to be placed before the Magistrate to quash the criminal proceedings under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure, the Supreme Court has observed. The bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and BV Nagarathna observed that a High Court can neither direct an investigating agency to submit the investigation report before it nor can it quash a criminal proceeding under Section 482 relying on such a report when the report has not been submitted to the Magistrate.

Reliability Or Genuineness Of Allegations Made In FIR/Complaint Cannot Be Gone Into While Exercising Jurisdiction U/Sec 482 CrPC: Supreme Court

[Case: State of Odisha v. Pratima Mohanty; Citation: LL 2021 SC 730]

The Supreme Court observed that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, a High court cannot embark upon any enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness of allegations made in the FIR/complaint. The powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna said.

Section 482 CrPC - High Court Can't Pass Adverse Orders Or Observations Against Third Party Who Is Not Before It: Supreme Court

[Case: Anu Kumar v. State (UT Administration) & Anr; Citation: LL 2021 SC 757]

The Supreme Court observed that the High Court in a petition for quashing filed by the accused u/s 482 CrPC cannot issue directions for proceeding against a third party who was neither before the Court and nor was given any opportunity before passing the order. A bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and CT Ravikumar examine whether the High Court in a petition for quashing filed by the accused u/s 482 CrPC could issue directions to proceed against a third party who was neither before the Court and nor was given any opportunity before passing the order and also make observations.