Delve into the depths of legal analysis as the court examines the quashing of criminal proceedings in a recent case. The focus is on the court’s interpretation of jurisdictional limits, the necessity of comprehensive investigations, and considerations of the interconnected nature of the allegations. Stay tuned to unravel the complexities of this important legal decision.
Facts
- The State of U.P. and the original informant have filed appeals against the judgment dated 06.03.2020 passed by the High Court quashing criminal proceedings.
- The High Court used its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings related to FIR Case Crime No.260 of 2018 in PS – Husainganj, District – Lucknow.
- The appeals provide a brief overview of the case and the impugned judgment that led to the appeals being filed by the State and the original informant.
- Two trucks carrying a consignment of beer were dispatched on 11.09.2018 but lost contact with GPS tracking agency on 13.09.2018 after 11.41 pm.
- Respondent no.4 directed its transporter to arrange a vehicle and deliver goods to respondent no.5/the informant.
- Respondent no.5 sent a demand order on 07.09.2018 and transferred Rs. 92,98,902 for delivery of two trucks in Lucknow and one in Varanasi.
- The trucks were hired for delivery by M/s. SICAL Logistics Limited Company after obtaining a transfer permit FL-36 from Excise Department.
- Vehicles were found standing near Junabganj, Lucknow on 13.09.2018 due to ‘no entry’ and then lost contact.
- Respondent no.5 lodged an FIR for the offense under Sections 406 & 420 IPC when the goods were missing midway.
- Manager of M/s SICAL Logistics lodged a separate FIR against two truck drivers and one unknown person.
- Charge-sheets were filed against respondent no.5 in multiple cases by the Investigating Officer.
- The goods belonged to United Breweries Limited and the entire process was regulated by the Excise Act and relevant State laws.
Also Read: Challenging Legal Presumptions in Negotiable Instrument Cases
Arguments
- The appellant, State of UP, represented by Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, and the original informant, represented by Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, argued against the High Court’s decision to quash the criminal proceedings in relation to missing trucks loaded with beer bottles.
- They contended that the allegations were serious and required investigation, involving the disappearances of trucks from highways in Uttar Pradesh with accusations of data forgery and uploading incorrect data against the accused.
- The High Court transferred the investigation to CB-CID without a further prayer or request from the accused, which was challenged by the appellants.
- They cited various court decisions to support their argument, emphasizing the need for a thorough investigation due to the gravity of the allegations.
- The delay in delivering the judgment by the High Court was also highlighted as a factor for quashing the decision.
- The argument further mentioned that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by conducting a ‘mini trial’ and not properly considering the complicity of the accused before quashing the criminal proceedings.
- Both the State and the original informant emphasized the interconnected nature of the two FIRs and the existence of a syndicate operating with the accused’s involvement, urging that the criminal proceedings should not have been set aside.
- Allegations of rebate were not made in the FIR.
- No loss was caused to the Excise Department.
- The accused were not responsible for the missing trucks loaded with beer.
- The accused delivered the goods to the transporter and hired two trucks.
- The main dispute was regarding the rebate, and the FIR was lodged with a mala fide intention.
- SICAL Logistic arranged the vehicles to deliver goods to the informant.
Also Read: Legal Analysis of Admission Irregularities in Educational Institutions
Analysis
- Delay in delivering judgment leads to unnecessary speculations
- Quashing criminal proceedings was justified as it was an abuse of process of law
- Relying on previous court decisions to support the current decision
- Prayer to dismiss the present appeals based on various court decisions
- The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by quashing criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
- The High Court conducted a mini-trial which is not permissible at this stage.
- The High Court should not get into the appreciation of evidence at the stage of deciding the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
- The judgment should be delivered promptly after arguments are concluded and reserved.
- It is important to strengthen the belief of the common man in the judiciary system by ensuring speedy and untainted justice.
- The High Court did not consider the allegation of a larger conspiracy and interconnectedness of the FIRs/criminal cases.
- The quashing of the criminal proceedings by the High Court is viewed as a grave error.
- No further observations that may influence either party are made at this stage.
- The investigation began with the allegation of missing two trucks but should have extended to previous instances of missing trucks with contraband goods.
Also Read: Legal Analysis: Driver Appointment Dispute
Decision
- Both appeals succeed and are allowed to the extent mentioned
- Proceedings in Criminal Case No.5694 of 2019 are to be restored
- Judgment and order of the High Court quashed and set aside regarding the quashing of criminal proceedings in Case Crime No.260 of 2018 PS
Case Title: THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. AKHIL SHARDA (2022 INSC 705)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000840-000840 / 2022
