Summary
The Supreme Court quashed, as against the appellant, an FIR alleging cheating, breach of trust and related offences arising from non-payment of about Rs. 9 crores to a labour sub-contractor. The FIR made no specific allegation against the appellant or the company of which he was Project Manager, the default being attributed to other companies, so it disclosed no offence against him and the High Court erred in declining to quash it under Article 226.
Issues
- Whether the High Court erred in refusing to quash the FIR against the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution while merely protecting him from arrest.
- Whether the allegations in the FIR, taken as they stand, disclosed the commission of any offence by the appellant.
Provisions considered
- Article 226, Constitution of IndiaThe Court reiterated that criminal proceedings may be quashed under Article 226 as well as under Section 482 CrPC, including at the investigation stage where non-interference would cause a miscarriage of justice, and held that the High Court erred in not exercising this power. (¶¶ 6, 7, 8, 12, 13)
- Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Treated as the usual source of the High Court's inherent power to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice, exercisable alongside Article 226 on the categories illustrated in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal. (¶¶ 6, 7, 11)
- Sections 406, 420, 323, 504, 506 and 120-B, Indian Penal Code, 1860The offences for which the FIR was registered; the Court found that, apart from vague allegations, the recitals even if taken as true disclosed no commission of these offences by the appellant. (¶¶ 4, 10, 13)
Held
- Although quashing of criminal proceedings is ordinarily sought under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court can equally do so in exercise of its extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution, to prevent abuse of process or otherwise secure the ends of justice, on the illustrative categories laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal. (¶¶ 6, 7)
- The High Court may interfere even at the investigation stage where non-interference would result in a miscarriage of justice, and an FIR may be quashed where, without adding to or subtracting from its recitals, it does not disclose the commission of an offence. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings the court may also look at the attending circumstances and read between the lines. (¶¶ 8, 9, 11)
- The FIR contained no specific allegation against the appellant or the company in which he was Project Manager; the alleged default in payment was attributed to other companies, and the complaint was in substance aimed at securing recovery of money. (¶ 10)
- Since the FIR, apart from vague allegations, did not disclose any offence against the appellant even if its contents were taken as true, requiring him to face trial would be an abuse of process, and refusing to quash would result in a miscarriage of justice. (¶¶ 12, 13)
Result
Appeal allowed; the High Court's judgment dated 26.08.2020 set aside and FIR No. 64/2020, Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Meerut, with all further proceedings, quashed qua the appellant.