Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 506 OF 2019
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.6689 of 2018)
Rafiq Ahmedbhai Paliwala ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
The State of Gujarat & Ors. ….Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the final
judgment and order dated 11.12.2017 passed by
the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in
Signature Not Verified
Criminal Misc. Application(for quashing & Set aside
Digitally signed by
ASHOK RAJ SINGH
Date: 2019.03.15
17:41:35 IST
Reason:
FIR) No.29936 of 2017 whereby the High Court
1
allowed the said application filed by respondent
Nos.217 herein.
3. This appeal involves a short point as would be
clear from the facts stated .
infra
4. By impugned order, the High Court, in
exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(hereinafter
referred to as “the Code”) allowed the petition filed
by respondent Nos. 2 to 17 herein and quashed FIR
being ICR No. 67 of 2017 registered with the
Gaekwad Haveli Police Station, Ahmadabad in part
insofar it relates to the offences punishable under
Sections 392, 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860(hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and
upheld it insofar as it relates to the offences
punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 323
of IPC read with Section 135 (1) of the GP Act.
2
5. The complainant has felt aggrieved by the
impugned order and has filed this appeal by way of
special leave in this Court.
6. So, the short question, which arises for
consideration in this appeal, is whether the High
Court was justified in allowing the petition and
quashing the FIR insofar as it relates to the offences
punishable under Sections 392, 395 and 397 IPC.
7. The order impugned reads as under:
“Having heard the learned counsel
appearing for the parties and having
considered the materials on record, I am of
the view that even if the entire case of the
prosecution is believed or accepted as true,
none of the ingredients to constitute the
offence of Sections 392, 395 or 397 are spelt
out. By any stretch of imagination, it cannot
be said that the common object of the
unlawful assembly was to commit dacoity.
In such circumstances, I have no
hesitation in quashing the FIR so far as
Sections 392, 395 and 397 of the Indian
Penal Code is concerned. So far as the other
offences are concerned, the investigation
shall proceed in accordance with law.
3
With the above, this application is
disposed of. Direct service is permitted.”
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we
are constrained to allow the appeal and set aside
the impugned order.
9. In our view, the High Court erred in
entertaining the petition filed by respondent Nos. 2
to 17 under Section 482 of the Code and further
erred in allowing it in part.
10. It is not in dispute that no proper investigation
could be made by the Investigating Officer (IO)
much less concluded on the basis of the FIR lodged
by the complainant and before it could be brought
to its logical conclusion, the impugned order
intervened resulting in quashing of the FIR itself in
relation to cognizable offences which were of more
serious in nature than the remaining one which
survived for being tried.
4
11. The High Court, in our view, instead of
quashing the FIR at such a preliminary stage
should have directed the IO to make proper
investigation on the basis of the FIR and then file
proper charge sheet on the basis of the material
collected in the investigation accordingly. It was,
however, not done. It was more so because, we find
that FIR did disclose prima facie allegations of
commission of concerned offences.
12. We cannot, therefore, countenance the
approach of the High Court when it proceeded to
quash the FIR partly in relation to more serious
offences (Sections 392, 395 and 397 IPC) without
allowing the IO to make proper investigation into its
allegations.
13. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the
appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The
impugned order is set aside.
5
14. We are, however, informed that pursuant to
the directions issued by the High Court, the charge
sheet has been filed in relation to the minor
offences, which survived after quashing of the FIR.
Be that as it may, the IO shall now make full and
proper investigation into the allegations made in the
original FIR lodged and after conclusion of the
investigation will file additional charge sheet in
relation to any other offences, if found made out.
15. Needless to say, the IO will make investigation
strictly in accordance with law without being
influenced by any observations. Let this be done
within 3 months as an outer limit.
………...................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
....……..................................J.
[DINESH MAHESHWARI]
New Delhi;
March 15, 2019.
6