Summary
The Supreme Court restored investigation into allegations that cotton entrusted to a mill had been sold and documents fabricated. The commercial setting and withdrawal of an earlier complaint did not justify quashing a later complaint disclosing prima facie offences. The High Court had improperly assessed disputed facts at the quashing stage. Further investigation was directed in accordance with law.
Issues
- Whether the commercial nature of the dealings and withdrawal of an earlier complaint justified quashing the subsequent criminal proceedings.
- Whether disputed allegations of fraud and fabrication could be adjudicated in proceedings to quash the FIR.
Provisions considered
- Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The inherent jurisdiction did not justify adjudicating disputed facts or quashing allegations that disclosed prima facie criminal offences merely because civil remedies were available. (¶¶ 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 37, 39)
Held
- Withdrawal of the earlier complaint without stated reasons did not itself bar a second complaint. The Court distinguished dismissal on merits after inquiry and discussed the exceptional-circumstances principles governing renewed complaints following such dismissal. (¶¶ 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 38, 39)
- A mere contractual breach is not cheating, but availability of a civil remedy does not foreclose prosecution where the allegations disclose criminal offences. Here the allegations included fraudulent appropriation and fabrication of documents, rather than breach of contract alone. (¶¶ 29, 33, 34, 36, 37)
- At this stage the High Court could not determine the truth of the allegations or decide disputed claims that the prosecution was a counter-blast. Those allegations required investigation and evidentiary adjudication. (¶¶ 32, 37, 39)
Result
Appeal allowed; the High Court’s quashing order set aside. The investigating authority directed to proceed with further investigation in accordance with law.