Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2018 (1) TMI SC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2018 (1) TMI 1624 - SC - Indian Laws


Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the FIR and the extent of quashing by the High Court.
2. Jurisdiction and powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. Prima facie disclosure of cognizable offenses in the FIR.
4. Proper procedure for investigation and the role of the investigating authorities.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the FIR and the extent of quashing by the High Court:
The appeals arose from a dispute over a piece of land, where the complainants alleged fraud, cheating, and other offenses by the accused. The High Court partly quashed the FIR, stating that certain sections did not disclose cognizable offenses while others did. Both parties were aggrieved; the accused wanted the entire FIR quashed, while the complainants argued that the entire FIR should be upheld.

2. Jurisdiction and powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 482 by acting as an investigating and appellate authority. The High Court should have only determined whether the FIR disclosed prima facie cognizable offenses and not delved into the merits of the case or the evidence.

3. Prima facie disclosure of cognizable offenses in the FIR:
The Supreme Court found that the FIR did disclose prima facie commission of various cognizable offenses. The High Court's detailed examination and partial quashing were inappropriate. The Supreme Court reiterated that once a prima facie case is established, the investigation should proceed without interference.

4. Proper procedure for investigation and the role of the investigating authorities:
The Supreme Court directed that the investigation should be completed expeditiously and without bias. It clarified that the order should not be construed as a decision on the merits of the case, and the investigating authorities should not be influenced by previous observations made by the lower courts or the High Court.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the complainants, set aside the High Court's judgment, and dismissed the appeals filed by the accused. The criminal applications filed by the accused under Section 482 were dismissed, and the investigation was ordered to proceed in accordance with the law. The Court refrained from making any observations on the merits to avoid prejudicing the investigation.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates