LAW ON QUASHING OF AN FIR: ANALYSED IN RECENT JUDGMENT

 

The Supreme Court in the latest case titled as “Priti Saraf v. State of NCT of Delhi”, ‘CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S).296 OF 2021 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 6364 of 2019) dated 10/03/202’  has analysed the law relating to Quashing of FIR in respect of various offences of Cheating, Criminal Breach of Trust under section 420, 406  and Section 34 Indian Penal  Code.

The brief facts of the case are that Respondent No. 2 has mortgaged  a  property with  State Bank of Patiala and the total legal liability payable to the Bank was Rs. 18 crores. In order to clear the said dues,  respondent No.2  had entered into a conspiracy with a broker so as to cheat and defraud the complainants herein and thereby to further misappropriate the amounts paid by the complainants as part of the agreement of sell entered with them qua the said property ,  thereby also committed breached the trust of the complainants by deliberately falsely stating to them that he would be liable to pay a sum of Rs. 25.50 crores to the complainant if the sale of the said property is not given effect by them.

Thereafter, Aggrieved complainants has lodged a complaint against the Respondents including the Respondent no.2  under section 200 Cr. PC read with section 190 Cr.PC  before the Ld. Magistrate for taking cognizance of offence of Cheating, Criminal breach of Trust under the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Magistrate after taking cognizance on the complaint of the Complainants directed the Delhi Police to register an FIR against the Respondents herein which includes the Respondent no, 2 also . Thereafter, A criminal revision petition was filed by Respondent No, 2 against the said order which was dismissed by Ld. Additional Session  Judge. During the pendency of the Proceedings, an arbitral proceedings have also been commenced between the parties i.e Complainants and the Respondents.

Thereafter, the said order of Additional Session Judge was challenged before the High Court by the Respondent No. 2 under section 482 CrPc and the same was allowed by the High Court and the High Court has given the  ratio decidendi in the  case and thereby “held’s that if such civil disputes as alleged are being permitted to be prosecuted in the criminal proceedings, this according to the learned Judge, would be a sheer abuse of the process of the Court. In consequence thereof, quashed all the criminal proceeding against the Respondent no. 2”:.

Aggrieved by the said Judgment of the High Court, the  Appellant has preferred an Appeal against the impugned before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein the Apex Court observed “in the matter of exercise of inherent power by the High Court, the only requirement is to see whether continuance of the proceedings would be a total abuse of the process of the Court. The Criminal Procedure Code contains a detailed procedure for investigation, framing of charge and trial, and in the event when the High Court is desirous of putting a halt to the known procedure of law, it must use proper circumspection with great care and caution to interfere in the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction”

So, after applying the aforesaid law enumerated by the Supreme Court to the  facts of the Present Case, Hon’ble Apex Court set aside the Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court, thereby allow the present appeal of the complainants herein.