The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Jagdish Bhimshi Gangar & Anr. v. Economic Offences Wing & Ors., has set aside an order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, ruling that a petition for quashing a charge-sheet under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) must be considered on its own merits. The bench, comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, held that directing the petitioners to raise all contentions in a discharge application was improper, as the scope of inquiry at the discharge stage is limited.
Background of the Case
The appellants, Jagdish Bhimshi Gangar and another, had approached the High Court by filing a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Their plea sought the quashing of a charge-sheet filed against them for offences under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 465 (forgery), 467 (forgery of valuable security), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using as genuine a forged document), read with Section 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The High Court, by its order dated September 20, 2024, dismissed this petition. It did not delve into the merits of the appellants’ case for quashing the proceedings. Instead, the High Court observed that the appellants could raise all their contentions while arguing an application for discharge. The appellants subsequently filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court challenging this order.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Decision
The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and heard the arguments from the counsel for the parties. The bench observed that the High Court had erred by dismissing the petition without a proper examination of the facts and legal arguments presented.
The Court’s order explicitly addressed the High Court’s reasoning, stating, “By the impugned order, the High Court has dismissed the petition without considering the merits of the case made out in the petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The High Court has simply observed that the appellants can raise all contentions while arguing discharge application.”
Critically, the Supreme Court emphasized the limited nature of a discharge hearing. The order noted, “This Court has repeatedly held that the scope of inquiry in discharge application is limited and no document which is not a part of the charge-sheet can be considered at that stage.”
Based on this reasoning, the Supreme Court concluded that the High Court’s failure to consider the merits of the Section 482 petition warranted intervention. The final order, delivered on September 22, 2025, stated, “As the High Court has not considered the case of the appellants on merits, we set aside the impugned order dated 20th September, 2024 and restore application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to the file of the High Court.”
The appeal was partly allowed, and the Supreme Court directed that the restored petition be listed before the appropriate Roster Bench of the Bombay High Court on October 15, 2025. The Court also ordered that the interim relief granted on December 2, 2024, would continue to operate until the High Court passes further orders. All legal questions were left open to be decided by the High Court in the restored proceedings.
