2017 (4) TMI 728 - SC - Indian Laws

Criminal Complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - First Information Report - Held that - We have taken into account the facts of the matter in question as it appears to us that no cognizable offence is made out against the appellants herein. The High Court was wrong in holding that the F.I.R. cannot be quashed in part and it ought to have appreciated the fact that the appellants - herein cannot be allowed to suffer on the basis of the complaint filed by Respondent No.2 herein only on the ground that the investigation against co-accused is still pending. It is pertinent to note that the learned Magistrate has opined that no offence is made out against co-accused Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 6 prima facie. According to us, the F.I.R. in question filed against the appellants herein by Respondent No.2 is only an after-thought with the sole intention to pressurize the appellants not to prosecute their Criminal Complaint filed by them under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Accordingly, we find that the order so passed by the High Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be set aside.

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashing of FIR under Criminal Writ Jurisdiction.
2. Consideration of cognizable offence against appellants.
3. High Court's decision on quashing the FIR.
4. Allegation of the FIR being an after-thought.

Analysis:
1. The Supreme Court reviewed a case where the High Court rejected an application under Criminal Writ Jurisdiction to quash an FIR registered under Sections 420/494/506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants sought relief from the FIR, which was filed by Respondent No.2 at the Police Station in West Delhi.

2. The Court determined that no cognizable offence was established against the appellants based on the facts presented. It criticized the High Court's decision, stating that the FIR could be quashed in part. The Court emphasized that the appellants should not suffer due to pending investigations against other accused individuals, especially when the Magistrate had already found no prima facie offence against certain co-accused.

3. The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court's reasoning and concluded that the FIR against the appellants was an after-thought by Respondent No.2. The Court highlighted that the FIR was a tactic to pressure the appellants and hinder their prosecution of a Criminal Complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

4. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and quashed the FIR specifically concerning the appellants. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellants, emphasizing that the High Court's decision was not legally sustainable.