2011 (1) TMI 374 - SC - Indian Laws

Detention of Goods - whether the appellants are entitled for the relief to quash the very first FIR registered by the CBI - The High Court mainly observed that in view of the consensus arrived at between the parties thereto, it will not be necessary for the parties to give effect to the earlier report and if a new report is passed, the earlier report will not be given effect to - It is evident from the record that after registration of the first information report the CBI made detailed investigation in the matter and filed charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 25(1) read with Section 3 of the Act - On the facts and in the circumstances, it is not possible at this stage to quash the very first information report, since much water has flown after registration of the FIR by the CBI - It was a fair suggestion but the learned counsel for the appellants expressed her reservation as regards the very validity of said minutes and order of Director General and wanted the question to be left open - Appeals are dismissed

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Delhi High Court order dismissing Writ Petition to quash FIR by CBI.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Background and Facts:
The case involves the auction of two paintings by M/s. Bowrings Fine Art Auctioneers Pvt. Ltd., which were detained by Customs authorities suspecting them to be antiques. The Archaeological Survey of India confirmed them as antiques, leading to a complaint and subsequent FIR by the CBI under the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972.

2. Writ Petitions and High Court Orders:
After filing a Writ Petition challenging the report of Director General, ASI, and seeking directions against ASI, the High Court directed a fresh examination of the paintings. Subsequent Writ Petitions were filed, one seeking directions against ASI and another to quash the FIR. The High Court disposed of the petitions, directing a fresh order by ASI and granting stay of prosecution.

3. Contentions of the Parties:
The appellant argued that the FIR was rendered redundant by the High Court's order, thus should be quashed. The CBI contended that there was a valid basis for the FIR and subsequent charge sheet, disentitling the appellants from relief.

4. Court's Decision:
The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly refused to quash the FIR. The Court emphasized that the jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and not a matter of course. The detailed investigation by CBI and framing of charges by the trial court post-FIR registration were considered as significant developments.

5. Trial Court's Role:
The Supreme Court clarified that it was for the trial court to determine whether the paintings were indeed antiquities, based on evidence presented. The trial court was instructed to consider this independently, without being influenced by previous court orders or observations.

6. Final Verdict:
Ultimately, the Supreme Court found no merit in the appeals and dismissed them accordingly. The Court refrained from expressing an opinion on certain suggestions regarding the prosecution, leaving it for the trial court to decide based on evidence presented during trial proceedings.