Brief Facts
- The complainant (Appellant) alleged that Respondent No. 2 & 3 agreed to take his truck on monthly rentpursuant to which an agreement was executed for the period between 14.07.2014 to 31.03.2016, and the truck was handed over. It was alleged that no rent was paid after the first month, and the truck remained in the possession of the Respondents.
- The Respondents filed an application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the FIR and all subsequent proceedings alleging that no agreement was ever executed. Meanwhile, the Trial Court had taken cognizance of the offences.
- The High Court quashed the proceedings in the case concerned while giving the liberty to the complainant to avail civil remedies.
- Thereafter, the Appellant filed the present appeal.
Issues
- Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the FIR, cognizance order, and criminal proceedings at the threshold, when investigation materials and charge-sheet had not been fully examined?
- Whether an FIR must contain exhaustive details of the offence, or whether general allegations of dishonest conduct are sufficient to trigger and sustain investigation?
Held
- The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order as it had prematurely quashed the FIR and proceedings under Section 482 CrPC by treating the matter as a mere civil dispute. The findings of the Court are as under:
- At the stage of deciding whether a criminal proceeding or FIR, as the case may be, is to be quashed at the threshold or not, the allegations in the FIR or the police report or the complaint, including the materials collected during investigation or inquiry, as the case may be, are to be taken at their face value so as to determine whether a prima facie case for investigation or proceeding against the accused, as the case may be, is made out. The correctness of the allegations is not to be tested at this stage.
- It is trite law that FIR is not an encyclopaedia of all imputations. Therefore, to test whether an FIR discloses commission of a cognizable offence what is to be looked at is not any omission in the accusations but the gravamen of the accusations contained therein to find out whether, prima facie, some cognizable offence has been committed or not. At this stage, the Court is not required to ascertain as to which specific offence has been committed. It is only after investigation, at the time of framing charge, when materials collected during investigation are before the Court, the Court has to draw an opinion as to for commission of which offence the accused should be tried. Prior to that, if satisfied, the Court may even discharge the accused. Thus, when the FIR alleges a dishonest conduct on the part of the accused which, if supported by materials, would disclose commission of a cognizable offence, investigation should not be thwarted by quashing the FIR.
- A petition to quash the FIR does not become infructuous on submission of a police report under Section 173 (2) of the CrPC, but when a police report has been submitted, particularly when there is no stay on the investigation, the Court must apply its mind to the materials submitted in support of the police report before taking a call whether the FIR and consequential proceedings should be quashed or not. More so, when the FIR alleges an act which is reflective of a dishonest conduct of the accused.
Relevant Para No.
- 16, 18 and 19