Brief Facts
- The present three criminal miscellaneous petitions have been instituted under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 361/2023, registered for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, and 120-B IPC, together with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. The FIR contains allegations that the petitioners abused and threatened the complainant with dire consequences, and that from the very inception they acted with dishonest intention, fraudulently obtained possession, withheld payments, and acted in a collusive and fraudulent manner.
- The petitioners had entered into a sublease agreement with the complainant for operating a restaurant on the Delhi–Jaipur Expressway, on the condition of paying 30% of the total revenue as rent.
- The complainant alleged default in payment of dues and failure to vacate the premises despite service of a legal notice.
- The petitioners, however, asserted that they had already made substantial payments and that the dispute, being contractual in nature, was civil and arbitrable, not criminal.
Issues
- Whether the High Court can exercise the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash an FIR at the pre-trial stage, particularly when the matter is under investigation?
- Whether the intention of petitioners was fraudulent and deceitful since inception and petitioners induce the complainant in any manner to enter into the sublease agreement and to handover the possession of the property in question?
Held
- The High Court, upon due consideration of the facts, circumstances, and the documents placed on record, held that the continuation of the impugned FIR together with all consequential proceedings constituted a sheer abuse of the process of law, and accordingly quashed the same. The findings of the Court are as under:
Scope and Ambit of powers under 482 CrPC
- The High Court while discussing the landmark judgments pronounced by the Supreme Court including P. Kapur vs. The State of Punjab [AIR (1960) SC 866], State of Haryana vs. Choudhary Bhajanlal [(1992) Suppl.(1) SCC 335], M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra [Air (2021) SC 1918], Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur vs. State of Gujarat [(2017) 9 SCC 641] and, Priti Saraf vs. State of NCT of Delhi [(2021) SCC OnLine 206, held that the High Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be used sparingly, only in the rarest cases where proceedings amount to an abuse of process or to secure justice. While considering quashing of an FIR, the Court does not test the truth of allegations but examines whether, on their face with undisputed material, they disclose any cognizable offence; if not, the FIR may be quashed.
- From perusal of previous documents executed between parties, including the sublease agreement, extension letter and notice issued by the complainant, which are prior to lodging the impugned FIR, it nowhere reflects that the complainant was induced in any manner by the petitioners, that too with a fraudulent and dishonest intention, to enter into the sublease agreement or to settle terms & conditions of sublease as agreed between the parties or to deliver the possession of the property in question to run a vegetarian restaurant Even if the case of complainant, as put forth in the FIR with support of other documents placed on record, is taken on its face value, the basic ingredients to constitute offences u/s 406 & 420 IPC are found absent. In the status report dated 05.12.2023 placed on record by the learned Public Prosecutor after initial investigation by the Police, there is no reference or reliance on any material to make an observation that on what basis, offences u/s 420, 406 and 120-B IPC are held to be established against the petitioner.
- It is to be noted here that mere using of words “deceive”, “cheating” or “criminal breach of trust” in the FIR is not suffice to constitute such offences and unless something is prima facie culled out from contents of the FIR or during course of investigation that petitioners played deceitfully at the very inception to entrust the property, mere inference of the Investigation Agency without any foundational material, may not be treated as sufficient, to accept the criminal motion within parameters of law and for not to exercise the jurisdiction by the High Court to quash the FIR and the investigation, more so when it is more than clear from record on its face value that essential elements to establish the commission of offence are absent.
Relevant Para No.
- 15,16,17 and 18