NCLT: Suspended Directors Who are Prospective Resolution Applicants Cann’t Access Valuation Reports  ||  Supreme Court Clarifies Test For Granting Bail to Accused Added at Trial under Section 319 CrPC  ||  SC: Fresh Notification For Vijayawada ACB Police Station not Required After AP Bifurcation  ||  SC: Studying in a Government Institute Does Not Create an Automatic Right to a Government Job  ||  NCLT Mumbai: CIRP Claims Cannot Invoke the 12-Year Limitation Period For Enforcing Mortgage Rights  ||  NCLAT: Misnaming Guarantor as 'Director' in SARFAESI Notice Doesn't Void Guarantee Invocation  ||  Jharkhand HC: Mere Breach of Compromise Terms by an Accused Does Not Justify Bail Cancellation  ||  Cal HC: Banks Cannot Freeze a Company's Accounts Solely Due To ROC Labeling a 'Management Dispute'  ||  Rajasthan HC: Father’s Rape of His Daughter Transcends Ordinary Crime; Victim’s Testimony Suffices  ||  Delhi HC: Judge Who Reserved Judgment Must Deliver Verdict Despite Transfer; Successor Can't Rehear    

State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Akhil Sharda and Ors. - (Supreme Court) (11 Jul 2022)

No mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 of CrPC

MANU/SC/0841/2022

Criminal

In present matter, State of U.P. as well as the original informant have preferred the present appeals dissatisfied with the impugned judgment passed by the High Court by which the High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). It is submitted on behalf of the State as well as the original informant that while passing the impugned judgment and order while quashing the criminal proceedings arising out of Case Crime, the High Court has not properly appreciated and/or considered the larger conspiracy.

High Court has virtually conducted a mini trial, which is not permissible at this stage and while deciding the application under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). As observed and held by this Court in a catena of decisions, no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 of CrPC jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the application under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considered.

The High Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction in quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC. The High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings by observing that there was no loss to the Excise Department. However, the High Court has not at all appreciated the allegations of the larger conspiracy. The FIR need not be an encyclopedia.

It is required to be noted that, the allegation of missing of two trucks was the beginning of the investigation and when during the investigation it was alleged that earlier also a number of trucks were missing transporting contraband goods, the FIR should not have been restricted to missing of the two trucks only and return of on the goods thereafter. The High Court has not at all appreciated and/or considered the allegation of the larger conspiracy and that both the FIRs/criminal cases are interconnected and part of the main conspiracy which is very serious if found to be true.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has committed a grave error in quashing and setting aside the criminal proceedings arising out of Criminal Cases lodged under Section 406 of IPC. Appeals allowed.

Tags : MINI TRIAL   PROCEEDINGS   QUASHING OF  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved