SC: Hindu Daughter-In-Law Widowed After Her Father-In-Law’s Death is Entitled to Maintenance  ||  SC: Vendor Remains a Necessary Party in Specific Performance Suits Even After Transferring Property  ||  Raj HC: Having Different Age Criteria For Contractual and Regular Appointments is Unconstitutional  ||  Delhi HC: Registered Property Title Prevails over Claims Based on Oral Family Settlements  ||  Gauhati HC: Only A Family Court Can Grant A Divorce under Muslim Law, Not A Civil Judge  ||  Del HC: Courts Cannot Compel Lawyers to Disclose Sources of Documents Filed on Clients' Instructions  ||  SC Explains When Shares Received After Company Amalgamation are Taxable as Business Income  ||  SC: Excavators, Dumpers Etc Used Within Factories aren’t Motor Vehicles For Road Tax Purposes  ||  SC: Complaints Alleging Fraud under Companies Act Can Be Filed Only By SFIO, Not By Private Parties  ||  SC: Preventive Detention Cannot Override Bail and Requires Proof of a Threat to Public Order    

Saraswatibai Vs. Lalitabai and Ors. - (Supreme Court) (22 Jan 2019)

Once Investigating Officer submitted final report on conclusion of investigation, High Court was not justified in interfering with criminal proceedings

MANU/SC/0052/2019

Criminal

In instant matter, the Appellant herein-original Complainant filed a Criminal Complaint against the private Respondents herein-the original Accused before the learned Magistrate alleging, that the complainant purchased a plot from Respondent No. 1 by way of a registered sale deed in the year 2005. After sale of the plot, the original owner-accused No. 1 fraudulently resold the plot in 2010 in favour of Accused No. 2 by re-designating as "Plot No. 24".

It was alleged that, the all Accused persons and one another have committed offences under Sections 420, 464, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The learned Magistrate passed an order for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure(CrPC). The police lodged an FIR for the aforesaid offences. That the Accused thereafter approached the High Court to quash the FIR by way of a Petition under Section 482 of CrPC. The High Court quashed and the criminal proceedings including the Final Report, hence, the Original Complainant has preferred the present appeals.

After the conclusion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the Final Report under Section 173 of the CrPC, concluding that the Accused have colluded and committed offences Under Sections 420, 464, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of IPC. Once the Final Report was submitted under Section 173 of the CrPC, normally the Accused, if aggrieved by the Final Report shall be relegated to approach the Magistrate for discharge. Even the High Court in the impugned order has also observed so. Despite the above, the High Court has without further discussing anything on merits of the Final Report has quashed the entire criminal proceedings, including the Final Report.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, once the Investigating Officer submitted the Final Report on conclusion of the investigation, the High Court was not justified in interfering with the criminal proceedings in exercise of power under Section 482 of the CrPC and particularly when in the Final Report, it was specifically concluded on the basis of the material on record that a prima facie case is made out for the offences alleged against the Accused persons. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has clearly erred in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the CrPC and in quashing and setting aside the criminal proceedings including the Final Report.

The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is quashed and set aside. Consequently, the prosecution against the Accused to proceed further in accordance with law. The appeals are allowed accordingly.

Tags : PROCEEDINGS   QUASHING OF   VALIDITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved