On October 14, 2024, the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant ruling regarding the procedure for quashing FIRs in criminal proceedings. The bench, comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, emphasized that a petition to quash criminal proceedings does not automatically become infructuous upon the submission of a police report. Instead, the Court asserted that it must thoroughly consider the materials supporting the police report before deciding whether to quash the FIR or continue with the proceedings.
Key ruling
The Court stated, “No doubt, a petition to quash the FIR does not become infructuous on submission of a police report under Section 173 (2) of the CrPC, but when a police report has been submitted, particularly when there is no stay on the investigation, the Court must apply its mind to the materials submitted in support of the police report before taking a call whether the FIR and consequential proceedings should be quashed or not.” This ruling highlights the need for the judiciary to engage with the facts of the case, especially in situations involving allegations of dishonest conduct against the accused.
Case background
The case originated from a complaint filed under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) against two accused persons for failing to pay a rental amount totaling Rs. 12,49,780. The complainant had entered into an agreement with the accused to operate a truck between Tata Steel Jamshedpur and Kalinganagar, but after one month, the accused stopped making payments, and the truck’s whereabouts became uncertain.
Following the complaint, the judicial magistrate instructed the police to investigate potential violations of Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Despite notices under Section 41A CrPC being issued, the accused failed to appear, leading to the issuance of a non-bailable warrant against them.
While the matter was pending in the High Court, the judicial magistrate took cognizance of the police report and initiated proceedings. The accused subsequently filed a petition under Section 482 to quash the non-bailable warrant and the ensuing proceedings, including the cognizance order.
High court’s decision
The High Court quashed the cognizance order and all subsequent proceedings, asserting that the application filed by the complainant was purely for the recovery of dues and did not constitute a criminal offense under Section 420 IPC. The High Court reasoned that since there was no allegation of entrustment in the FIR, Section 406 IPC was also not applicable. Additionally, the fact that the accused had paid rent for one month undermined any claim of dishonest intention from the outset.
Dissatisfied with this ruling, the complainant approached the Supreme Court to challenge the High Court’s decision.
Supreme court’s observations
In its judgment, the Supreme Court, led by Justice Manoj Misra, clarified the standards for assessing whether criminal proceedings should be quashed at the threshold. The Court maintained that the allegations in the FIR, the police report, and any materials collected during the investigation must be considered at face value to determine if a prima facie case exists for proceeding against the accused.
More Read
The Supreme Court noted that while the correctness of the allegations is not to be evaluated at this stage, the absence of payment by the accused and their misleading promises suggested a potential dishonest intention, warranting further investigation. The Court stated, “Existence of mens rea is a question of fact which may be inferred from the act in question as well as the surrounding circumstances and conduct of the accused.”
The Supreme Court emphasized that if the FIR suggests dishonest conduct that, if corroborated by materials, indicates a cognizable offense, the investigation should not be obstructed by quashing the FIR. It concluded that the whereabouts of the truck should be thoroughly investigated, stating, “If it had been dishonestly disposed of by the accused, it may make out a case of criminal breach of trust.”
This ruling by the Supreme Court serves as a crucial reminder of the judiciary’s role in balancing the rights of the accused with the need for thorough investigations in cases alleging dishonest conduct. By remitting the matter to the High Court for a reconsideration of the quashing petition, the Supreme Court underscored the importance of engaging with all materials relevant to the police report before reaching a decision, thereby reinforcing the integrity of the legal process in criminal matters.
