Explore the intricacies of a recent legal case involving the quashing of an FIR and charge-sheet. The court’s detailed legal analysis delves into the nuances of criminal complaints and civil suits, highlighting the importance of legal scrutiny in such matters. Stay tuned for insights into the complexities of the legal system and its application in this case.
Facts
- Appellant filed a criminal complaint against respondent for offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC.
- Criminal complaint by respondent led to FIR registration against the appellants.
- Appellants filed a petition seeking quashing of the FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
- Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance and issued summons to respondent.
- High Court appointed a Court Receiver to take possession of goods from respondent.
- Agreement between appellant and respondent led to disputes.
- Disputes resulted in a civil suit filed by appellant in the High Court.
- Police filed charge-sheet and Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance.
- Appellant No.1 moved an application in IA No.1015 of 2014 for bringing on record the charge-sheet and inclusion of a prayer for quashing the charge-sheet.
- High Court did not go into the merits of the contentions raised in the application.
- Aggrieved by the disposal of their quash petition, the appellants sought relief.
- The High Court of Judicature at Patna dismissed the quash petition, stating it was not proper to keep the matter pending any further.
Also Read: Interpretation of Corporate Guarantor under IBC
Arguments
- The primary contention of Mr. Mukul Rohatgi and Mr. Gopal Jain, learned senior counsel for the appellants is that the complaint filed by respondent No.2 does not disclose the commission of any offence.
- They argue that the complaint by respondent No.2 was a counter blast to the civil suit filed by appellant No.1 and a criminal complaint lodged by the appellants against respondent No.2.
- They point out that the High Court overlooked the pendency of an application for bringing on record the charge-sheet and for the inclusion of a prayer for quashing of the charge-sheet.
- In response, Mr. Narender Hooda, learned senior counsel for respondent No.2, contends that the appellants were negligent in not pressing for the inclusion of a prayer for quashing the charge-sheet during the hearing.
- He mentions that the appellants sought adjournments without pressing for an order in the Interlocutory Application, leading the Court to not keep the quash petition pending.
- The criminal complaint filed by respondent No.2 alleged various actions by the appellants but did not establish the ingredients of the offences claimed.
- The Court was urged to consider the final report and witness statements by the learned senior counsel for respondent No.2.
- The Court would have accepted this argument if the case had originated from a First Information Report filed with the police.
Also Read: Judicial Promotion Dispute Resolved
Analysis
- The petitioner had filed a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C seeking quashing of an FIR registered against them by the second respondent.
- The High Court of Judicature at Patna dismissed the petition, leading to the petitioner being aggrieved by the order.
- The FIR was registered at the instance of the second respondent.
- The petitioner’s appeal was against the order passed by the High Court.
- Respondent No.2 filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C.
- The complaint was referred to the police under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.
- The complaint only disclosed a commercial relationship which broke down.
- It is not possible to expand the scope of the complaint by merely adding language from the Indian Penal Code.
- Respondent No.2 filed a complaint only after the appellants filed a civil suit and a criminal complaint.
- The High Court erred in overlooking the request to include the relief of quashing the charge-sheet in the original petition.
- Citing precedents to justify quashing a complaint when no offense is evident is now considered untimely.
- The High Court of Patna refused to quash the criminal complaint lodged by the appellants.
- Appellant No.1 initiated a civil suit in Bombay and obtained an order appointing a Court Receiver for seizing the goods in the godown.
Also Read: Ex post facto Environmental Clearance in Bio-Medical Waste Case
Decision
- The impugned order of the High Court is set aside
- The FIR and the charge-sheet against the appellants are quashed
- No costs are awarded
- The appeal is allowed
Case Title: WYETH LIMITED Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR (2022 INSC 1316)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001224-001224 / 2022
