Case Note:
Criminal - First Information Report - Quashing thereof - Sections 34, 120B, 409, 420, 465 and 467 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, Article 227 of Constitution of India and Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - High Court dismissed Appellants’ petitions on ground that filing of petition was premature and there was no need for exercising powers either under Article 227 of Constitution or under Section 482 of Code - Hence, present appeal - Whether order passed by Metropolitan Magistrate in private complaint filed by Respondent No. 2 for offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 465, 467 read with Sections 34, 120B of Code, as well as FIR, were liable to be quashed
Appellants filed a petition before the High Court inter alia praying for quashing of the said FIR and the same prayer was also made by RM . The High Court dismissed both the petitions as according to it, the filing of the petitions was premature and there was no need for exercising the powers either under Article 227 of the Constitution of India or under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, the Appellants approached the present Court by filing the present appeal.
Held, while dismissing the appeal:
(i) In the present case a fact finding investigation was directed by the impugned order. Consequently, FIR was registered against Appellants No. 2 to 4 and against RM. The Accused under Indian Criminal Legal System, unless proved guilty shall always be given a reasonable space and liberty to defend himself in accordance with the law. Further, it is always expected from a person accused of an offence pleading not guilty that he shall co-operate and participate in criminal proceedings or proceedings of that nature before a court of law, or other Tribunal before whom he may be accused of an ‘offence’ as defined in Section 3(38) of the General Clauses Act, i.e., an act punishable under the Penal Code or any special or local law. At the same time, courts, taking cognizance of the offence or conducting a trial while issuing any order, are expected to apply their mind and the order must be a well reasoned one. [15]
(ii) The Appellants approached the High Court even before the stage of issuance of process. In particular, the Appellants challenged the order passed by the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Code, 1973. The Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants after summarizing their arguments in the matter emphasized also in the context of the fundamental rights of the Appellants under the Constitution, that the order impugned had caused grave inequities to the Appellants. However, it appeared that this order under Section 156(3) of Code requiring investigation by the police, cannot be said to have caused an injury of irreparable nature which, at this stage, requires quashing of the investigation. The stage of cognizance would arise only after the investigation report is filed before the Magistrate. Therefore, at this stage the High Court correctly assessed the facts and the law in this situation and held that filing of the petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution or under Section 482 of Code, at this stage were nothing but premature. Further, the High Court correctly came to the conclusion that the inherent powers of the Court should be sparingly used. In these circumstances, there was no flaw in the impugned order. [24]
HDFC Securities Ltd. and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (09.12.2025 - SC) : MANU/SC/1573/2016