In a significant judgment delivered by a bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice J.B. Pardiwala, the Supreme Court of India ruled that a petition to quash an FIR does not become infructuous merely because a police report under Section 173(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) has been submitted. The Court emphasized that judicial scrutiny of the investigation materials is still necessary before deciding whether to quash an FIR.
The judgment came in the case of Somjeet Mallick vs. State of Jharkhand & Others (Criminal Appeal No. ____ of 2024, arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 6583 of 2024), where the appellant sought a reversal of the Jharkhand High Court’s decision to quash the criminal proceedings without examining the evidence collected during the investigation.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a dispute involving a truck rental agreement. The appellant, Somjeet Mallick, had leased his truck (Trailor No. NL 01K 1250) to the respondents for a monthly rent of ₹33,000, to be used between Tata Steel, Jamshedpur, and Kalinganagar. After receiving the first month’s rent, the respondents allegedly defaulted on subsequent payments despite assurances, leading Mallick to file an application under Section 156(3) CrPC. A police investigation ensued, and a charge sheet was eventually filed.
However, the respondents filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC, seeking to quash the FIR, arguing that the matter was a civil dispute over unpaid rent, not a criminal case. The Jharkhand High Court quashed the FIR and subsequent proceedings, prompting Mallick to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues
The key issue before the Supreme Court was whether the filing of a police report under Section 173(2) CrPC renders a quashing petition infructuous. The High Court had earlier quashed the FIR, concluding that no offence of criminal breach of trust or cheating was made out, and the dispute should be addressed through civil remedies.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court, in overturning the High Court’s decision, observed that the submission of a police report under Section 173(2) CrPC does not automatically render a petition to quash the FIR redundant. The Court emphasized that even after a charge sheet is submitted, the courts must carefully examine the materials collected during the investigation before deciding whether to quash an FIR.
Justice Manoj Misra, delivering the judgment, stated:
“No doubt, 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.”
This observation underscores the necessity for courts to scrutinize the contents of the police report before making any determinations regarding the continuation or termination of criminal proceedings.
Reasoning Behind the Judgment
The Supreme Court pointed out that the High Court failed to consider the materials gathered during the investigation, which could shed light on the respondents’ alleged dishonest intentions. The Court further noted that the FIR clearly alleged that the accused had taken possession of the truck but did not pay rent after the first month, despite repeated assurances. This conduct, the Court said, indicated a prima facie case of dishonest behaviour that warranted further investigation.
The Supreme Court emphasized that mens rea (criminal intent) is a factual question that must be thoroughly investigated before any conclusions are drawn. The bench noted:
“When a party alleges that the accused, despite taking possession of the Truck on hire, has failed to pay hire charges for months together, while making false promises for its payment, a prima facie case, reflective of dishonest intention on the part of the accused, is made out which may require investigation.”
This reasoning reinforced the Court’s view that criminal proceedings should not be quashed prematurely, especially in cases where further investigation could reveal more substantive evidence.
Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the Jharkhand High Court’s order, remitting the case back to the High Court for reconsideration. The Court instructed the High Court to review the materials collected during the investigation and make a fresh decision on whether to quash the FIR. The appeal was allowed, and the petition for quashing was restored for further adjudication.
The Court clarified that the submission of the police report does not eliminate the need for judicial oversight and that the courts must carefully evaluate all the evidence before arriving at any conclusions.
The appellant, Somjeet Mallick, was represented by legal counsel who argued that the High Court had wrongly quashed the FIR without considering the charge sheet and the ongoing investigation. The respondents maintained that the dispute was purely civil and that no criminal offences had been committed.
Case Details:
– Appellant: Somjeet Mallick
– Respondents: State of Jharkhand & Others
– Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. ____ of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 6583 of 2024)
– Bench: Justice Manoj Misra, Justice J.B. Pardiwala
