Kerala HC: Physiotherapists and Occupational Therapists Cannot Use “Dr.” Without Medical Degree  ||  Delhi High Court: Law Firms Must Verify Cited Case Laws; Senior Counsel Not Responsible for Finality  ||  MP High Court Dismisses Shah Bano’s Daughter’s Plea, Rules ‘Haq’ Movie is Fiction  ||  Bombay HC Cancels ERC Order, Rules Stakeholders Must Be Heard Before Amending Multi-Year Tariff  ||  Calcutta High Court Rules Dunlop’s Second Appeal Not Maintainable under the Trade Marks Act  ||  Kerala HC: Revisional Power U/S 263 Not Invocable When AO Grants Sec 32AC Deduction After Inquiry  ||  J&K&L HC: Section 359 BNSS Doesn’t Limit High Court’s Inherent Power U/S 528 to Quash FIRs  ||  Bombay HC: BMC Ban on Footpath Cooking via Gas/Grill Doesn’t Apply to Vendors Using Induction  ||  Madras HC: Buyer Not Liable for Seller’s Tax Default; Purchase Tax Can’t Be Imposed under TNGST Act  ||  Kerala HC: Oral Allegations Alone Insufficient to Sustain Bribery Charges Against Ministers    

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 2025 - All Rights Reserved