The Supreme Court on 1st March,2021 comprising of a bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah, observed that a High Court, invoking its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can quash an FIR if the same is found to be an abuse of process of law. (Kapil Agarwal vs. Sanjay Sharma)
Facts of the Case
In this case, a writ petition was preferred by the accused for quashing the first information report(FIR) registered under under Sections 420/406 of the Indian Penal Code(IPC) against them was dismissed by the Allahabad High Court. The accused's contention was that the FIR against him is a counterblast to the cheque bounce complaint filed against the complainant.
Contention of the parties
- Shri K.V. Vishwanathan, The Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants has vehemently submitted that the impugned FIR is an abuse of process of law to harass the appellants by converting a purely civil dispute into a criminal case.
- It was submitted that the contents of the FIR show that it has been registered for recovery of commission and discounts on sale which alleged to have taken in the regular business transactions place over a period of 15 months between the parties. Hence, it is a purely contractual dispute on the face of it.
- It was submitted that no civil proceedings have been filed by the complainant for recovery of the alleged due amount. It is submitted that the impugned FIR has been lodged solely with a view to arm twist and extort money from the appellants.
- The present appeal was opposed by Shri M.C. Dhingra, the Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent – original complainant. It was submitted that as the FIR discloses commission of cognizable offence, the High Court has rightly refused to quash the FIR, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
- It was submitted that initially having failed to get the money due and payable to the complainant, the complainant was constrained to make an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Ghaziabad. However, without referring to the allegations of the offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 34/120-B IPC, the learned Magistrate vide a very cryptic order directed for treating the application under Section 156(3) as a complaint case under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Aggrieved, the complainant preferred criminal revision before the learned Sessions Court, which was set aside by order dated 23.03.2015 and remanded the case back to the learned Magistrate to consider the material on record and decide the complainant’s application under Section 156(3) afresh by a reasoned order. It was submitted that once again a closure report was submitted by the very same investigating officer who earlier submitted the closure report.
- It was submitted that as the learned Magistrate did not pass any order on the closure report and kept the application under Section 156(3) under consideration for long, much to the agony of the complainant craving justice, the complainant was constrained to file the impugned FIR, making serious allegations against the company and its officers – appellants herein.
Court's Observation and judgment
The bench has held that merely because on the same set of facts with the same allegations and averments earlier the complaint is filed, there is no bar to lodge the FIR with the police station with the same allegations and averments. However, when the impugned FIR is nothing but an abuse of process of law and to harass the accused, the High Courts must quash the FIR by exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and 482 Cr.P.C., to secure the ends of justice.
As per Section 210 Cr.P.C., when in a case instituted otherwise than on a police report, i.e., in a complaint case, during the course of the inquiry or trial held by the Magistrate, it appears to the Magistrate that an investigation by the police is in progress in relation to the offence which is the subject matter of the inquiry or trial held by him, the Magistrate shall stay the proceedings of such inquiry or trial and call for a report on the matter from the police officer conducting the investigation.
It also provides that if a report is made by the investigating police officer under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and on such report cognizance of any offence is taken by the Magistrate against any person who is an accused in the complaint case, the Magistrate shall inquire into or try together the complaint case and the case arising out of the police report as if both the cases were instituted on a police report.
It also further provides that if the police report does not relate to any accused in the complaint case or if the Magistrate does not take cognizance of any offence on the police report, he shall proceed with the inquiry or trial, which was stayed by him, in accordance with the provisions of Cr.P.C.
Hence, the Code of Criminal Procedure permits such an eventuality of a complaint case and enquiry or trial by the Magistrate in a complaint case and an investigation by the police pursuant to the FIR. However, at the same time, if it is found that the subsequent FIR is an abuse of process of law and/or the same has been lodged only to harass the accused, the same can be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution or in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In that case, the complaint case will proceed further in accordance with the provisions of the Cr.P.C.
“As observed and held by this Court in catena of decisions, inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution is designed to achieve salutary purpose that criminal proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate into weapon of harassment.”
The statute saves the inherent power of the High Court, as a superior court, to make such orders as are necessary
(i) to prevent an abuse of the process of any Court; or
(ii) otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
Same are the powers with the High Court, when it exercises the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. When the Court is satisfied that criminal proceedings amount to an abuse of process of law or that it amounts to bringing pressure upon accused, in exercise of inherent powers, such proceedings can be quashed.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
