AMAZON SELLER SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED vs STATE OF KARNTAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
Reserved on : 27.08.2026
Pronounced on : 04.11.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 04 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7018 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
AMAZON SELLER SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED
(INCORRECTLY MENTIONED AS AMAZON IN
FIR NO. 32 OF 2026)
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
ND
SATTVA HORIZON, 2 FLOOR,
SURVEY NO. 6/1 AND 7/1,
VINAYAK NAGAR, KATTIGENAHALLI,
VENKATALA VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BENGALURU – 560 064
THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
MR.G.S. ARJUN KUMAR
…PETITIONER
Digitally
signed by
CHETAN B C
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka
(BY SRI SANDESH J.CHOUTA, SR.ADVOCATE FOR
SMT.GITANAJALI MIRIAM MATHEW, ADVOCATE)
- 2 -
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNTAKA
BY SUBRAMANYAPURA POLICE STATION,
THROUGH THE POLICE SUB INSPECTOR,
SUBRAMANYAPURA SUB-DIVISION,
BENGALURU CITY – 560 061
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. SMT. BHAVANA BELAGERE,
D/O LATE RAVI BELAGAERE
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.1082,
SOBHA CLOVELLY APARTMENT
SUBRAMANYAPURA MAIN ROAD
PADMANABHANAGARA, BENGALURU CITY
KARNATAKA – 560 061.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, SPP-I FOR R-1;
SMT.ANITHA S.M.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 528 OF BNSS., (ERSTWHILE
SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO 1. QUASH THE FIR DATED
04.02.2026 REGISTERED IN CR.NO.0032/2026 BY RESPONDENT
NO.1 SUBRAMANYAPURA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY
UNDER SECTIONS 51(1)(b) AND 63 OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957
AGAINST THE PETITIONER, COPY WHEREOF IS PRODUCED
HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE-A, PURSUANT THERETO; 2. QUASH THE
- 3 -
COMPLAINT DATED 04.02.2026, FILED BY RESPONDENT NO.2
BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.1, IF ANY/ AS REFERRED TO IN THE
IMPUGNED FIR, PURSUANT TO WHICH THE FIR BEARING
CR.NO.0032/2026 CAME TO BE REGISTERED AGAINST THE
PETITIONER.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 27.08.2026, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
The petitioner, accused - Amazon Seller Services Private
Limited (‘Amazon’ for short), is before this Court calling in question
the registration of a crime in Crime No.32 of 2026 for the offences
punishable under Sections 51(1)(b) and 63 of the Copyright Act,
1957 (‘the Act’ for short).
2. Heard Sri Sandesh J. Chouta, learned senior counsel for the
petitioner, Sri B.N.Jagadeesha, learned State Public Prosecutor – 1
- 4 -
for respondent No.1 and Smt. Anitha S.M.Patil, learned counsel for
respondent No.2.
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:
3.1. The petitioner, Amazon, is an online marketplace
intermediary, on which third party sellers sell several products, one
'ಹೇಳಿ ಹೋಗು ಕಾರಣ'
such product being a book by name , authored by the
late Ravi Belagere. Respondent No.2 is the complainant, Bhavana
Belagere, the daughter of the late author. The complainant is the
proprietor of the publication by name Bhavana Prakashana, which
possesses the copyright of the book. The complainant registers a
complaint on 04.02.2026 alleging that unauthorised reproduction
and sale of copies of the book is happening on the online platforms
of Amazon, Flipkart and Meesho, in purportedly pirated form at
` 149/-, whereas the maximum retail price of the book is ` 350/-.
Respondent No.2, the authorised publisher of the book, claims
exclusive publication rights, alleging financial loss and infringement
of the copyright. On the basis of the complaint, the jurisdictional
police register a crime in Crime No.32 of 2026 for the aforesaid
offences. On 05.05.2026, a police notice comes to be issued upon
- 5 -
the petitioner, directing it to appear and cooperate with the
investigation. In the notice, the petitioner is said to have been
specifically called upon to furnish details regarding the listing of the
book on its platform in the name of one Mala M. on 17.01.2026, the
source of procurement and the agreement relating to the book. The
petitioner replies to the notice through its Law Enforcement
Response Team, confirming that the listing of the book has been
taken down from the platform pursuant to an oral direction on
07.05.2026. The petitioner also furnishes the details available in its
record. It is at that stage that the petitioner is before this Court in
the subject petition.
4. Sri. Sandesh J. Chouta, learned senior counsel appearing
for the petitioner, would vehemently contend that the petitioner
operates as an online marketplace, facilitating transactions between
independent third party sellers and buyers, and neither publishes,
manufactures, procures nor sells the impugned book. The listing and
pricing are controlled by the respective sellers. Amazon serves only
as a platform and beyond that there is no act of the petitioner to be
drawn into the web of crime. He would submit that the petitioner is
- 6 -
an intermediary as obtaining under Section 2(1)(w) of the
Information Technology Act, 2000 (‘the IT Act’ for short) and is
entitled to the statutory safe-harbour protection under Section 79(2)
and (3) of the IT Act, read with the Information Technology
(Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
No allegation attracts the exceptions under Section 79 of the IT Act,
namely abetment or connivance in the unlawful act. The petitioner is
only required to do its due diligence, and it has infact complied with
its statutory obligations of due diligence.
4.1. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further contends
that mere selling or listing of the book at a discount price that does
not mean to pirate the book and would not infringe the copyright
and there is no material in that regard. Learned senior counsel
would rely upon certain judgments of the Apex Court and that of
this Court to buttress his submissions that the offences under
Sections 51(1)(b) and 63 of the Act cannot be laid against an
intermediary – the petitioner.
5. Sri B.N.Jagadeesha, learned State Public Prosecutor - 1
would refute the submissions contending that the petitioner's claim
- 7 -
that there is compliance of due diligence requirement is completely
disputed, as the question is serious dereliction of due diligence. In
terms of the petitioner's own records, it indicates that
approximately 6,719 copies of the book were sold in the year 2019,
whereas, the number of copies published by respondent No.2, who
has copyright has printed only 3,000 copies of the book. Learned
State Public Prosecutor submits, wherefrom the difference of 3,800
copies of the book came to be sold by the petitioner - intermediary
is what is required to be investigated. He would submit that mere
reliance on seller agreement and declaration of intermediary status,
cannot by itself establish compliance of due diligence obligations.
He would submit that the petition be dismissed and seeks
continuation of investigation.
6. Smt. Anitha S.M.Patil, learned counsel for respondent No.2
would also toe the lines of the learned State Public Prosecutor -1 –
Sri B.N.Jagadeesha, contending that the protection under Section
79 of the I.T.Act is conditional and not absolute. The petitioner
must establish the compliance with the requirement of statutory
due diligence under the Act. It cannot be presumed on the basis of
- 8 -
assertions. On the removal of the subsequent listing, does not
extinguish the allegations against the petitioner. The authenticity
of the sellers on the platform of the petitioner and the compliance
of statutory requirement of due diligence must be investigated into
and the defense of the petitioner cannot be accepted. Learned
counsel submits that under Section 528 of the BNSS, the defense of
the accused should not be looked into as there are seriously
disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in a petition
filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, that too at this stage.
Learned counsel would further contend that the petitioner in the
petition avers that infringing listings were blocked. The petitioner
blocked the listing of her authorized reseller of the book in Kannada
due to the complaint, while other sellers continue to sell the books
on Amazon platform and therefore, matter requires investigation is
her submission.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel for the parties and have
perused the material on record.
- 9 -
8. The afore-narrated facts, dates, link in the chain of events
and the position of the parties are all a matter of record.
Respondent No.2 is the proprietor of one publication – Bhavana
Prakashana, who is the daughter of the author of the book. The
entire issue now gets triggered from the registration of the
complaint on 04.02.2026. It reads as follows:
- 10 -
- 11 -
Then, the complaint becomes a crime in Crime No.32/2026.
The complaint is against Amazon, Flipkart and Meesho, on the
allegation that the book authored by late Ravi Belagare and
published by Bhavana Prakashana, a publication owned by the
complainant, is sold through the online platforms Amazon, Flipkart
and Meesho, in pirated form without any authorization, as the
maximum retail price of the book is ` 350/- and what is sold in three
of the said online platforms is ` 149/-, without any valid
authorization from the copyright holder.
8.1. The police then issue the notice on registration of the
Crime No.32/2026. The notice reads as follows:
From, Date:-05/05/2026
Police Sub-Inspector
Subramanyapura Police Station,
Bangalore City.
Section 35(3) B.N.S.S-23
Police Notice
In exercise of powers conferred by Section 35(3) of
Bharatiya nagarik suraksha sanhita 2023, I the undersigned,
Investigating Officer here By inform you that Case has been
registered against you With Crime No-32/2026 Dated:-
05/02/2026 in Subramanya Pura police Station under
provisions of Sections 51(1)(b), 63 of Copy rights act As per
the preliminary findings found in investigation I have
believed that it is necessary to question you to as certain
Facts & circumstances of above Said Case Therefore, you Are
- 12 -
directed to appear before Io For questioning At
Subramanyapura Police Station within 3 days Once you
receive this Notice.
You are hereby directed to strictly comply with all the
following Instructions.
1. You shall not commit any offence in future.
2. You shall not influence/Tamper the witness/Witnesses in
this case in any way.
3. You shall not intimidate, coerce or induce any person who
is aware of the facts and circumstances of this case to testify
before the court or the police.
4. You shall appear before the court when required and
directed.
5. You shall cooperate with the investigation and participate
in the investigation of this case when necessary.
6. You shall cooperate with the investigation of this case in a
proper manner and shall give and state all the true facts
when asked by the investigating officers without concealing
any facts.
7. You shall produce all relevant documents or materials
required for the investigation.
8. You shall provide cooperation and assistance in the
identification and arrest of the co-accused.
9. You shall not destroy/allow to be destroyed any evidence
relevant to the investigation/trial of this case.
10. Apart from the above directions, the investigating officer
may impose other directions and conditions as per the
gravity of the case.
11. you are instructed to give Complete details about who
ೇ ೋಗು ಾರಣ
booked " " book in name of mala.m. on
- 13 -
17/01/2026 Wing your Company Platform, from where did
you procured/get the book? and details of agreement to tell
the above Said book.
If you do not follow the instructions and directions
given in this notice or do not appear, you will be arrested
under Section 35(3) of the Indian Civil Code. BNSS act 2023
Contents: enclosed copy of FIR
Sd/-
Police Sub Inspector
Subramanyapura
Police Station
Bengaluru - 560 061
To,
Manager Amazon,
Bagmane Constellation Business Park,
Block-12, Bagmane Constellation, Service,
RD Ferns City, Doddanekkundi,
Bengalore-560048.”
Reply of the petitioner to the afore-quoted notice is submitted
not once, but twice and it is then, the petitioner approaches this
Court.
9. The only submission of the learned State Public Prosecutor
representing the State and the learned counsel for respondent No.2
– complainant is that, for an illustration that in the year 2019, the
copyright holder of the book has published only 3,000 copies of the
- 14 -
book and the petitioner - Amazon even in terms of its own
pleadings or the documents appended to the petition indicates that
it has sold 6,719 copies of the book, without the authorization of
the publisher or the copyright holder. It is un-understandable as to
how so many books are even sold through different channels
without any verification.
10. The crime is at the nascent stage. On the very look at the
books, which are the issue in the lis , prima facie , demonstrate that
ೇ ೋಗು ಾರಣ’
‘
the book is pirated as the front and back cover
pages of the book seems to be different, though the contents of the
book are the same. The cover pages of both the books are as
follows:
- 15 -
ORIGINAL WORK - FACE COVER ORIGINAL WORK - BACK COVER
PIRATED WORK - FRONT COVER PIRATED WORK – BACK COVER
- 16 -
This is where the due diligence that the petitioner had to
undertake comes into play. Sections 51 and 63 of the Act read as
follows:
“ Section 51. When copyright infringed.—
Copyright in a work shall be deemed to be infringed—
(a) when any person, without a licence granted by the owner
of the copyright or the Registrar of Copyrights under this Act
or in contravention of the conditions of a licence so granted
or of any condition imposed by a competent authority under
this Act—
(i) does anything, the exclusive right to do which is by this
Act conferred upon the owner of the copyright, or 1
[(ii) permits for profit any place to be used for the
communication of the work to the public where such
communication constitutes an infringement of the copyright
in the work, unless he was not aware and had no reasonable
ground for believing that such communication to the public
would be an infringement of copyright; or]
(b) when any person—
(i) makes for sale or hire, or sells or lets for hire, or by
way of trade displays or offers for sale or hire, or
(ii) distributes either for the purpose of trade or to
such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of
the copyright, or
(iii) by way of trade exhibits in public, or
(iv) imports 2 into India, any infringing copies of *
the work:
- 17 -
[Provided that nothing in sub-clause (iv) shall apply to the
import of one copy of any work for the private and domestic
use of the importer.]
Explanation.— For the purposes of this section, the
reproduction of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic
work in the form of a cinematograph film shall be
deemed to be an “infringing copy””.
Xxxxx
Section 63. Offence of infringement of copyright or
other rights conferred by this Act.—
Any person who knowingly infringes or abets the
infringement of—
(a) the copyright in a work, or
(b) any other right conferred by this Act 1 [except the
right conferred by section 53A], 2
[shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which
shall not be less than six months but which may extend to
three years and with fine which shall not be less than fifty
thousand rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees]:
Provided that 1 [where the infringement has not been made
for gain in the course of trade or business] the court may,
for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the
judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of
less than six months or a fine of less than fifty thousand
rupees.]
Explanation.— Construction of a building or other structure
which infringes or which, if completed, would infringe the
copyright in some other work shall not be an offence under
this section.”
- 18 -
Section 51(b)(i) of the Act contemplates that when the
copyright is infringed. The copyright in a work shall be deemed to
be infringed when a person makes for sale or hire, or sells or lets
for hire, or by way of trade displays or offers for sale or hire.
Section 51(b)(ii) of the Act contemplates that if any distribution of
either for the purpose of trade or to such an extent as to affect
prejudicially the owner of the copyright and Section 51(b)(iii) and
(iv) addresses commercial exhibition in public and importation of
any infringed copies of the work respectively.
11. The crime is registered on 04.02.2026 and as observed
hereinabove, the matter is at the stage of investigation. The facts
obtaining in the case at hand are threshold seriously disputed
questions of facts with regard to the statutory obligation of due
diligence complied by the petitioner or otherwise. Admittedly, there
is over sale of books, which are not even printed by the copyright
holder and the difference is to the tune of 3800 copies of the book
in the year 2019. In the reply dated 10.05.2026, submitted by the
petitioner to the afore-quoted notice issued by the police, the
petitioner had enclosed certain details available in its records
- 19 -
concerning the listings, sellers particulars, dates of sale and the
sellers identification numbers and the number of units sold as on
the even date. On the basis of the material provided by the
petitioner, a pie chart indicating the listings details of the book is
shown as follows:
12. These are the matters in the realm of the seriously
disputed questions of facts. It is apposite to refer to the judgment
of the Apex Court in the case of KAPTAN SINGH v. STATE OF
1
UTTAR PRADESH , has held as follows:
“…. …. ….
9.1. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in
the present case the High Court in exercise of powers
1
(2021) 9 SCC 35
- 20 -
under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,, has quashed the criminal
proceedings for the offences under Sections 147, 148,
149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC. It is required to be noted
that when the High Court in exercise of powers under
Section 482 Cr.P.C.,, quashed the criminal proceedings,
by the time the investigating officer after recording the
statement of the witnesses, statement of the
complainant and collecting the evidence from the
incident place and after taking statement of the
independent witnesses and even statement of the
accused persons, has filed the charge-sheet before the
learned Magistrate for the offences under Sections 147,
148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC and even the learned
Magistrate also took the cognizance. From the impugned
judgment and order [Radhey Shyam Gupta v. State of U.P.,
2020 SCC OnLine All 914] passed by the High Court, it does
not appear that the High Court took into consideration the
material collected during the investigation/inquiry and even
the statements recorded. If the petition under Section 482
Cr.P.C.,, was at the stage of FIR in that case the
allegations in the FIR/complaint only are required to be
considered and whether a cognizable offence is
disclosed or not is required to be considered. However,
thereafter when the statements are recorded, evidence
is collected and the charge-sheet is filed after
conclusion of the investigation/inquiry the matter
stands on different footing and the Court is required to
consider the material/evidence collected during the
investigation. Even at this stage also, as observed and held
by this Court in a catena of decisions, the High Court is not
required to go into the merits of the allegations and/or enter
into the merits of the case as if the High Court is exercising
the appellate jurisdiction and/or conducting the trial. As held
by this Court in Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel [Dineshbhai
Chandubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2018) 3 SCC 104 :
(2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 683] in order to examine as to whether
factual contents of FIR disclose any cognizable offence or not,
the High Court cannot act like the investigating agency nor
can exercise the powers like an appellate court. It is further
observed and held that that question is required to be
examined keeping in view, the contents of FIR and prima facie
material, if any, requiring no proof. At such stage, the High
Court cannot appreciate evidence nor can it draw its
- 21 -
own inferences from contents of FIR and material relied
on. It is further observed it is more so, when the
material relied on is disputed. It is further observed
that in such a situation, it becomes the job of the
investigating authority at such stage to probe and then
of the court to examine questions once the charge-
sheet is filed along with such material as to how far and
to what extent reliance can be placed on such material.
9.2. In Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar [Dhruvaram
Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 18 SCC 191 :
(2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 672] after considering the decisions of this
Court in Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992
Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] , it is held by this
Court that exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,, to
quash the proceedings is an exception and not a rule. It is
further observed that inherent jurisdiction under
Section 482 Cr.P.C.,, though wide is to be exercised
sparingly, carefully and with caution, only when such
exercise is justified by tests specifically laid down in the
section itself. It is further observed that appreciation of
evidence is not permissible at the stage of quashing of
proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C. , Similar view has been expressed by this Court
in Arvind Khanna [CBI v. Arvind Khanna, (2019) 10 SCC 686 :
(2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 94] , Managipet [State of
Telangana v. Managipet, (2019) 19 SCC 87 : (2020) 3 SCC
(Cri) 702] and in XYZ [XYZ v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 10 SCC
337 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 173] , referred to hereinabove.
9.3. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the
aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand, we are of
the opinion that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in
quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under
Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
10. The High Court has failed to appreciate and consider
the fact that there are very serious triable issues/allegations
which are required to be gone into and considered at the time
of trial. The High Court has lost sight of crucial aspects which
have emerged during the course of the investigation. The High
Court has failed to appreciate and consider the fact that the
document i.e. a joint notarised affidavit of Mamta Gupta
- 22 -
Accused 2 and Munni Devi under which according to Accused 2
Ms Mamta Gupta, Rs 25 lakhs was paid and the possession
was transferred to her itself is seriously disputed. It is
required to be noted that in the registered agreement to sell
dated 27-10-2010, the sale consideration is stated to be Rs 25
lakhs and with no reference to payment of Rs 25 lakhs to Ms
Munni Devi and no reference to handing over the possession.
However, in the joint notarised affidavit of the same date i.e.
27-10-2010 sale consideration is stated to be Rs 35 lakhs out
of which Rs 25 lakhs is alleged to have been paid and there is
a reference to transfer of possession to Accused 2. Whether Rs
25 lakhs has been paid or not the accused have to establish
during the trial, because the accused are relying upon the said
document and payment of Rs 25 lakhs as mentioned in the
joint notarised affidavit dated 27-10-2010. It is also required
to be considered that the first agreement to sell in which Rs
25 lakhs is stated to be sale consideration and there is
reference to the payment of Rs 10 lakhs by cheques. It is a
registered document. The aforesaid are all triable
issues/allegations which are required to be considered at the
time of trial. The High Court has failed to notice and/or
consider the material collected during the investigation.
11. Now so far as the finding recorded by the High
Court that no case is made out for the offence under Section
406 IPC is concerned, it is to be noted that the High Court
itself has noted that the joint notarised affidavit dated 27-10-
2010 is seriously disputed, however as per the High Court the
same is required to be considered in the civil proceedings.
There the High Court has committed an error. Even the High
Court has failed to notice that another FIR has been lodged
against the accused for the offences under Sections 467, 468,
471 IPC with respect to the said alleged joint notarised
affidavit. Even according to the accused the possession was
handed over to them. However, when the payment of Rs 25
lakhs as mentioned in the joint notarised affidavit is seriously
disputed and even one of the cheques out of 5 cheques each
of Rs 2 lakhs was dishonoured and according to the accused
they were handed over the possession (which is seriously
disputed) it can be said to be entrustment of property.
Therefore, at this stage to opine that no case is made out for
the offence under Section 406 IPC is premature and the
aforesaid aspect is to be considered during trial. It is also
- 23 -
required to be noted that the first suit was filed by Munni Devi
and thereafter subsequent suit came to be filed by the
accused and that too for permanent injunction only. Nothing is
on record that any suit for specific performance has been filed.
Be that as it may, all the aforesaid aspects are required to be
considered at the time of trial only.
12. Therefore, the High Court has grossly erred in
quashing the criminal proceedings by entering into the
merits of the allegations as if the High Court was
exercising the appellate jurisdiction and/or conducting
the trial. The High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in
quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
13. Even the High Court has erred in observing that
original complaint has no locus. The aforesaid observation is
made on the premise that the complainant has not placed on
record the power of attorney along with the counter filed
before the High Court. However, when it is specifically stated
in the FIR that Munni Devi has executed the power of attorney
and thereafter the investigating officer has conducted the
investigation and has recorded the statement of the
complainant, accused and the independent witnesses,
thereafter whether the complainant is having the power of
attorney or not is to be considered during trial.
14. In view of the above and for the reasons stated
above, the impugned judgment and order [Radhey Shyam
Gupta v. State of U.P., 2020 SCC OnLine All 914] passed by
the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise
of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is unsustainable and the
same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly
quashed and set aside. Now, the trial is to be conducted and
proceeded further in accordance with law and on its own
merits. It is made clear that the observations made by this
Court in the present proceedings are to be treated to be
confined to the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only
and the trial court to decide the case in accordance with law
and on its own merits and on the basis of the evidence to be
laid and without being influenced by any of the observations
made by us hereinabove. The present appeal is accordingly
allowed.”
- 24 -
12.1. The Apex Court in the case of MUSKAN v. ISHAAN
2
KHAN (SATANIYA) , has held as follows:
“…. …. ….
C. ANALYSIS
17. The main issue that arises for our analysis is
whether the High Court was right in quashing the criminal
proceedings against the private respondents primarily on the
ground that the earlier complaints did not mention the two
specific incidents dated 22.07.2021 and 27.11.2022, which
were later on added in the FIR and whether the same would
not amount to conducting a ‘ mini trial ’ which is clearly
prohibited under the scheme of Section 482 of the Cr. P.C.
…. …. ….
22. On the aspect of the powers of the Courts
under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C., it is settled that at the
stage of quashing, the Court is not required to conduct a
mini trial. Thus, the jurisdiction under Section 482 of
the Cr. P.C. with respect to quashing is somewhat
limited as the Court has to only consider whether any
sufficient material is available to proceed against the
accused or not. If sufficient material is available, the
power under Section 482 should not be exercised.
23. This Court in the case of State of Odisha v. Pratima
10
Mohanty held that:
“ 8.2. It is trite that the power of quashing
should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection
and in rare cases. As per the settled proposition of law
while examining an FIR/complaint quashing of which is
sought, the court cannot embark upon any enquiry as
2
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2355
- 25 -
to the reliability or genuineness of allegations made in
the FIR/complaint. Quashing of a complaint/FIR should
be an exception rather than any ordinary rule.
Normally the criminal proceedings should not be
quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC
when after a thorough investigation the charge-sheet
has been filed. At the stage of discharge and/or
considering the application under Section 482
CrPC the courts are not required to go into the
merits of the allegations and/or evidence in
detail as if conducting the mini-trial. As held by
this Court the powers under Section 482 CrPC
are very wide, but conferment of wide power
requires the court to be more cautious. It casts
an onerous and more diligent duty on the Court.”
24. Further in the case of Central Bureau of
11
Investigation v. Aryan Singh , this Court held that at
the stage of Section 482 of the Cr. P.C., the High Court
is not required to conduct a mini trial.
“6. From the impugned common judgment
and order [ Aryan Singh v. CBI , 2022 SCC OnLine
P&H 4158] passed by the High Court, it appears
that the High Court has dealt with the
proceedings before it, as if, the High Court was
conducting a mini trial and/or the High Court
was considering the applications against the
judgment and order passed by the learned trial
court on conclusion of trial. As per the cardinal
principle of law, at the stage of discharge and/or
quashing of the criminal proceedings, while
exercising the powers under Section 482 CrPC,
the Court is not required to conduct the mini
trial. The High Court in the common impugned
judgment and order has observed that the
charges against the accused are not proved. This
is not the stage where the
prosecution/investigating agency is/are
required to prove the charges. The charges are
required to be proved during the trial on the
basis of the evidence led by the
prosecution/investigating agency.”
(emphasis supplied)
- 26 -
25. This Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Private
Limited (supra) gave following directions to the Courts
exercising the power under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C.:
“ Conclusions
33. In view of the above and for the reasons
stated above, our final conclusions on the
principal/core issue, whether the High Court would be
justified in passing an interim order of stay of
investigation and/or “no coercive steps to be
adopted”, during the pendency of the quashing
petition under Section 482 CrPC and/or under Article
226 of the Constitution of India and in what
circumstances and whether the High Court would be
justified in passing the order of not to arrest the
accused or “no coercive steps to be adopted” during
the investigation or till the final report/charge-sheet is
filed under Section 173 CrPC, while
dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing
the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of
powers under Section 482 CrPC and/or under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, our final conclusions
are as under:
33.1 ….
33.2. Courts would not thwart any
investigation into the cognizable offences.
33.3. It is only in cases where no cognizable
offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first
information report that the Court will not permit an
investigation to go on.
33.4. The power of quashing should be
exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been
observed, in the “rarest of rare cases” (not to be
confused with the formation in the context of death
penalty).
33.5. While examining an FIR/complaint,
quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark
upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or
otherwise of the allegations made in the
FIR/complaint.
- 27 -
33.6 ….
33.7. Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be
an exception rather than an ordinary rule.
33.8 to 33.11 ….
33.12. The first information report is not an
encyclopedia which must disclose all facts and details
relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the
investigation by the police is in progress, the court
should not go into the merits of the allegations in the
FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the
investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the
conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR
does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts
to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the
investigating officer finds that there is no substance in
the application made by the complainant, the
investigating officer may file an appropriate
report/summary before the learned Magistrate which
may be considered by the learned Magistrate in
accordance with the known procedure.
33.13 and 33.14 …..
33.15. When a prayer for quashing the FIR is
made by the alleged accused and the court when it
exercises the power under Section 482 CrPC, only has
to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose
commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court
is not required to consider on merits whether or not
the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable
offence and the court has to permit the investigating
agency/police to investigate the allegations in the
FIR.”
(emphasis supplied)
26. Further, this Court in the case of State of
12
Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani held that:
“13. There can be no dispute over the
proposition that inherent power in a matter of
quashment of FIR has to be exercised sparingly
and with caution and when and only when such
exercise is justified by the test specifically laid
- 28 -
down in the provision itself. There is no denial of
the fact that the power under Section 482 CrPC
is very wide but it needs no special emphasis to
state that conferment of wide power requires
the Court to be more cautious. It casts an
onerous and more diligent duty on the Court.
14. In this regard, it would be seemly to
reproduce a passage from Kurukshetra University
[ Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana , (1977) 4
SCC 451 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 613] wherein Chandrachud,
J. (as his Lordship then was) opined thus : (SCC p.
451, para 2)
“2. It surprises us in the extreme
that the High Court thought that in the
exercise of its inherent powers under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it
could quash a first information report. The
police had not even commenced
investigation into the complaint filed by the
Warden of the University and no proceeding
at all was pending in any court in pursuance
of the FIR. It ought to be realised that
inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary
jurisdiction on the High Court to act
according to whim or caprice. That statutory
power has to be exercised sparingly, with
circumspection and in the rarest of rare
cases.””
(emphasis supplied)
27. We are of the view that the High Court has
erred in law by embarking upon an enquiry with regard
to credibility or otherwise of the allegations in the
complaints and the FIR. Normally, for quashing an FIR,
it must be shown that there exists no prime facie case
against the accused persons. In the present case, from
the conjoint reading of the complaints and the FIR, it
can be seen that prime facie allegations of harassment
and demand of dowry are made out, despite that the
High Court quashed the FIR against the private
respondents primarily on the ground that the earlier
two complaints that were filed by the appellant did not
mention the specific instances that happened on
22.07.2021 and 27.11.2022 and the same were later on
mentioned in the FIR only as an afterthought and was a
- 29 -
counterblast to the legal notice sent by respondent no.
1/husband to the appellant as she was not coming back
to her matrimonial home. This approach adopted by the
High Court, in our considered opinion, amounts to
conducting a mini trial .”
(Emphasis supplied at each instance)
In the light of the afore-quoted judgments of the Apex Court
and the facts obtaining in the case at hand, t here is no warrant of
interference at the stage of investigation, while reserving liberty to
the petitioner to knock at the doors of the appropriate fora at the
appropriate stage.
13. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition lacking in merit
stands rejected.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
NVJ