CASE SUMMARY:
In State Represented by the Inspector of Police vs M. Maridoss & Anr., [Criminal Appeal No. 67/2023], the Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that in a petition for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.PC, the High Courts cannot conduct mini trial. The Court was hearing an appeal challenging order of the Hon’ble Madras High Court quashing FIR on allegation of commission of offences under Sections 124A, 153A, 504, 505(1)(b) and 505(2) of the IPC.
While setting aside the impugned order, the Supreme Court has reiterated settled principles of law as laid down in a number of judgments, including M/s Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd., v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in (2020) 10 SCC 180. Some such important principles include:
1. The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the ‘rarest of rare cases’. (the rarest of rare cases standard in ots application for quashing under S. 482 Cr.PC is not to be confused with the norm which has been formulated in the context of death penalty);
2. 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 complaint;
3. Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;
4. Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and rarity than an ordinary rule;
5. Ordinarily the Courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police. However, the inherent power of the Court is recognized to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process under S. 482 Cr.PC;
6. The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping;
7. Save in exceptional cases, where non – interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;
8. The power under Section 482 is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the Court.
In the case at hand, the Court took note of the fact that FIR was lodged on 09.12.2021, immediately on the very next date the quash petition was filed and within a period of four days i.e., 14.12.2021, the impugned judgment and order was passed quashing the criminal proceedings. The Court held that it is the right conferred upon the Investigating Agency to conduct the investigation and reasonable time should be given to the Investigating Agency to conduct the investigation unless it is found that the allegations in the FIR do not disclose any cognizable offence at all or the complaint is barred by law.
(This is just a case summary and not an opinion piece/case comment.)
留言