FIR Can Be Quashed Even After Filling Of Chargesheet Rules Supreme Court

Must Read

UK Supreme Court Rules in Favour of Policyholders in the COVID-19 Business Interruption Case

The United Kingdom’s Supreme Court finally concluded the long-awaited COVID-19 business interruption case brought by the Financial Conduct Authority...

Kerala High Court Disposes of Writ Petition on Grounds That Reliefs Sought Are Already in Process of Being Granted, Directs State to Complete the...

Excerpt A single-judge bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice Shircy V. gave orders on the writ petition filed by the Petitioner....

Supreme Court Directs Government To Provide Free Education To Minor Children of Rape Victims

The Deputy Commissioner of Ranchi was directed by the Supreme Court on Wednesday to make sure that minor children of rape victims are ensured free education till they attain the age of 14 years. The Court made the observation while hearing a plea filed by a woman who claimed that she belonged to the SC/ST group from Jharkhand. She was forced by a man after which her father lodged a complaint.

Aadhar Review Plea Rejected in a 4:1 Verdict by Supreme Court

The petition seeking the re-examination of the 2018 Aadhar Verdict which declares the Aadhar act constitutional and valid was dismissed by a 5-judge bench in a 4:1 verdict. In January the petitions were considered by a bench of Justices A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud, S Abdul Nazeer, Ashok Bhushan, and B R Gavai in the chamber and the order was up on the website on Wednesday.

New Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) Amendments Are Valid Says Supreme Court

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court upheld the amendments in the insolvency and bankruptcy code which makes it mandatory for a minimum of 100 or 10% of home buyers of a project to initiate insolvency proceedings against a builder for not delivering flats or commercial shops on time.

[HUL – Sebamed Ad War] Bombay High Court Passed Injunction; Permits Sebamed Ad Against HUL’s Dove

The ad war between the German personal care brand Sebamed and the consumer goods giant Hindustan Unilever Ltd (HUL) has come to an end. On January 19th, Bombay High Court passed an injunction order permitting the Sebamed ad against Hindustan Unilever’s Dove without any changes. It was observed that Sebamed ads were backed with evidence-based data. However, Sebamed was ordered to put an end to its advertisement that compared HUL soap bars Lux, Pears, and Santoor with Rin and detergent category.

Follow us

Supreme Court of India ruled that High Courts of India are empowered to consider a petition seeking quashing of FIR even after filling of charge-sheet by the Investigative agencies.

Facts of the Case

Mr. Anand Kumar Mohatta (Appellant No.1) entered into a contract with Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd. (Respondents) for development of property located in Lutyens Zone of New Delhi and owned by the Appellant No.1 and subsequently transferred to Appellant No.2. As per the contract it was agreed between the parties that the property in question would be developed by constructing a high-rise building comprising of flats. It was also agreed that Appellant would receive a sum of Rupees One-Crore from the Respondents. However, the agreement could not see the light of the day as under the new regulations which came into force after signing of the agreement construction of high-rise building in the Lutyens Bangalow Zone was prohibited. Appellant wrote a letter to the Respondent clearly mentioning that he does not wish to develop the property any further. Sum of Rs. One crore was retained by the Appellants.

Respondent filed FIR against the Appellants accusing them of committing an offense under section 406 of Indian Penal Code. Appellants filed a petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 seeking quashing of FIR. The High Court dismissed the petition of Appellants saying that case is at the stage of investigation and directed the Appellant to join the investigation. Aggrieved by this decision of the High Court, Appellants filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court of India. While the matter was pending in Supreme Court of India Police filed the charge sheet against the Appellant No.1 and Appellant no.2 was cleared in the investigation.

Arguments raised

Counsel for Applicant argued that keeping in mind the facts of the case, the dispute between the parties was of civil nature and it was wrong to file a criminal case under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. Moreover, counsel also argued that under the terms of contract sum of Rs. One Crore could be returned only if the developer handed over the possession of owner’s share to the owner, since this did not happen, therefore the time when the sum became due to the Respondent never came.

Counsel for Respondent on other hand vehemently argued that Appellant No.1 was guilty of committing a crime under section 406 because Appellant No.1 transferred the subject matter property to Appellant No.2 and did not return the amount of Rs. One crore to the Respondents. It was also argued that since the charge sheet was filed, time for filing of the petition for quashing of FIR has lapsed.

The decision of the case

Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India consisting of Justice SA Bobde and Justice Nageshwar Rao ruled in favor of the Appellants. They ruled that argument of the Respondent that petition under section 482 seeking quashing of FIR cannot be entertained after filing of charge sheet was untenable as there is nothing in the section which restricts the exercise of power of Court to prevent the abuse of process of court or miscarriage of justice only to stage of the FIR. The bench further said that 

“High Court can exercise jurisdiction under section 482 of Cr.p.c even when the discharge application is pending with the trial court. It would be a travesty to hold that proceedings initiated against a person can be interfered with at the stage of FIR but not if it has advanced, and the allegations have materialized into a charge sheet.”

With regard to the unreturned amount of Rs. One Crore and transfer of property to Appellant No.2, The Bench agreed with the contentions of counsel for Appellants and held that offense under section 306 of the IPC could not be made out and held that Appellant could not be said to have been entrusted with property which he has dishonestly converted to his own use or disposed of in violation of any direction of law or contract. The act of transferring the said property by Appellant No.1 to Appellant No.2 also did not help the Respondent’s case.

Observations

The Bench in this case also observed that litigants are going for criminal cases even when the dispute is of civil nature.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

UK Supreme Court Rules in Favour of Policyholders in the COVID-19 Business Interruption Case

The United Kingdom’s Supreme Court finally concluded the long-awaited COVID-19 business interruption case brought by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the Hiscox Action...

Kerala High Court Disposes of Writ Petition on Grounds That Reliefs Sought Are Already in Process of Being Granted, Directs State to Complete the...

Excerpt A single-judge bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice Shircy V. gave orders on the writ petition filed by the Petitioner. This writ is filed by...

Supreme Court Directs Government To Provide Free Education To Minor Children of Rape Victims

The Deputy Commissioner of Ranchi was directed by the Supreme Court on Wednesday to make sure that minor children of rape victims are ensured free education till they attain the age of 14 years. The Court made the observation while hearing a plea filed by a woman who claimed that she belonged to the SC/ST group from Jharkhand. She was forced by a man after which her father lodged a complaint.

Aadhar Review Plea Rejected in a 4:1 Verdict by Supreme Court

The petition seeking the re-examination of the 2018 Aadhar Verdict which declares the Aadhar act constitutional and valid was dismissed by a 5-judge bench in a 4:1 verdict. In January the petitions were considered by a bench of Justices A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud, S Abdul Nazeer, Ashok Bhushan, and B R Gavai in the chamber and the order was up on the website on Wednesday.

New Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) Amendments Are Valid Says Supreme Court

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court upheld the amendments in the insolvency and bankruptcy code which makes it mandatory for a minimum of 100 or 10% of home buyers of a project to initiate insolvency proceedings against a builder for not delivering flats or commercial shops on time.

[HUL – Sebamed Ad War] Bombay High Court Passed Injunction; Permits Sebamed Ad Against HUL’s Dove

The ad war between the German personal care brand Sebamed and the consumer goods giant Hindustan Unilever Ltd (HUL) has come to an end. On January 19th, Bombay High Court passed an injunction order permitting the Sebamed ad against Hindustan Unilever’s Dove without any changes. It was observed that Sebamed ads were backed with evidence-based data. However, Sebamed was ordered to put an end to its advertisement that compared HUL soap bars Lux, Pears, and Santoor with Rin and detergent category.

Bombay High Court Says White Collar Crimes Are More Dangerous Than Murder and Dacoity

The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court rejected 4 petitions of 4 businessmen after observing that white-collar crimes are more serious than murder and dacoity. The businesspersons were booked for fraud of evading GST by producing fake invoices.

Right To Protection Can’t Be Granted To Married Woman Involved in Live-in Relationship: Allahabad High Court

The Bench of Allahabad High Court dismissed a petition of a live-in couple, observing that a married woman in a live-in relationship is not entitled to any sort of legal protection whatsoever. The Court remarked that they are adults and should live as ‘husband and wife’ if they want no one to interfere in their lives.

Police To Decide on the Entry of Farmers To Delhi on Republic Day Says Supreme Court

While the Supreme Court heard a plea seeking an injunction against the tractor rally that is scheduled for January 26th, it held that it is the decision of the Delhi Police officers to see whether the protesting farmers should get entry into Delhi on Republic Day.

[Sushant Singh Rajput Case]: Republic TV & Times Now Hindered Investigation Probe Says Bombay HC

In November last year, the Court had reserved its judgement on the PILs that came from 8 former police officers from Maharashtra, lawyers, activists and NGOs, seeking restraining orders against the media trial in the Sushant Singh Rajput case.

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -