P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

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 2024 - All Rights Reserved