Summary
A licensed liquor dealer paid about Rs 93 lakh to United Breweries for three truckloads of beer; two GPS-tracked trucks dispatched through the brewery's transporter vanished near Lucknow in September 2018 and the dealer lodged an FIR under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. After investigation a charge-sheet was filed and the accused summoned; the transporter had lodged a separate FIR against the drivers, and the goods were later delivered. The Allahabad High Court, under Section 482 CrPC, quashed the proceedings arising from the dealer's FIR, observing that no loss was caused to the Excise Department, while transferring the other FIR to the CB-CID. The Supreme Court restored the proceedings.
Issues
- Whether the High Court may, in exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC, quash a charge-sheet and summoning order by appreciating the evidence and conducting what amounts to a mini trial.
- Whether criminal proceedings arising from one FIR can be quashed when it is interconnected with another FIR and the allegations disclose a larger conspiracy warranting investigation.
- Whether delay of six months in pronouncing a reserved judgment vitiates it.
Provisions considered
- Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973At the stage of a quashing petition the High Court cannot appreciate evidence or conduct a mini trial (Pratima Mohanty, Thommandru, Rajeev Kourav, Neeharika Infrastructure); having itself found the allegations serious enough to order CB-CID investigation of the connected FIR, it exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing the proceedings in the dealer's FIR and restricting the scope of investigation. (¶¶ 7, 7.1, 7.2, 7.4)
- Sections 406 and 420 (with Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120-B in the charge-sheet), Indian Penal Code, 1860The FIR alleged breach of trust and cheating in the disappearance of two consignments of beer for which full payment had been made; the charge-sheet and summoning order on these offences were restored for trial. (¶¶ 2, 2.1, 8)
Held
- The High Court virtually conducted a mini trial, which is not permissible while deciding an application under Section 482 CrPC, and thereby exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing the criminal proceedings. (¶¶ 7, 7.1)
- The High Court itself considered the allegations very serious and directed CB-CID investigation of FIR No. 227 of 2019, yet restricted the scope of that investigation and failed to appreciate that both FIRs were interconnected and formed part of an alleged larger conspiracy involving disappearance of trucks carrying excisable goods; the observation that there was no loss to the Excise Department did not meet the allegations. An FIR need not be an encyclopaedia (Satpal), and the missing of two trucks was only the beginning of an investigation that revealed earlier similar disappearances. (¶¶ 7.2, 7.3, 7.4)
- Though a judgment is not to be set aside merely because it was delivered six months after being reserved, pronouncement is part of the justice dispensation system and must be without delay; long delay breeds speculation and shakes public confidence (Anil Rai, Bhagwandas Fatechand Daswani). (¶ 6.2)
Result
Appeals allowed; the Allahabad High Court's order of 06.03.2020 set aside to the extent it quashed Criminal Case No. 5694 of 2019 arising from Case Crime No. 260 of 2018, P.S. Husainganj, Lucknow, and the proceedings before the trial court restored.