Parole Is a Concession, Not an Absolute Right: Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Emergency Parole to Hardcore Prisoner for Daughter’s Marriage Rejecting Meritorious Candidates on Technicalities is Unjust and Irrational: Delhi High Court Taxation Law | Termination of Trading Contracts Yields Revenue Receipts, Not Capital Gains: Calcutta High Court on ITC Settlement Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Over Alleged Bigamy and Fraud Citing Lack of Jurisdiction and Evidence Patent Controller’s Order Lacked Detailed Analysis: Madras High Court in Remitting Case for Fresh Review High Courts’ Supervisory Powers Limited to Territorial Jurisdiction: Kerala HC Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Is Invalid: Delhi High Court on Income Tax Reassessment Ensuring Safety and Financial Upliftment is Paramount: High Court Affirms Development Agreement for Deities’ Benefit Liberty of an Individual Has to Be Protected: Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail Emphasizing Right to Speedy Trial Sacred Groves Are the Harmonious Blend of Ecological and Cultural Values: Supreme Court Recognizes Sacred Groves (Orans) as Forest Lands under Forest Conservation Act, 1980 A Wide Road Does Not Excuse A Driver From Exercising Due Care - Rash And Negligent Conduct That Causes Death Cannot Be Condoned: Supreme Court of India Civil Courts Retain Jurisdiction to Decide Title and Partition Where Revenue Authorities Decline Imperfect Partition: Supreme Court Termination Without Inquiry Under Article 311(2)(b) Unjustified; Voluntary Retirement Accepted from Termination Date: Supreme Court Director Cannot Be Held Liable Under Section 138 NI Act Without Arraigning the Company: Supreme Court

FIR Cannot Be Quashed Without Examining Evidence Collected During Investigation: Supreme Court

18 October 2024 9:36 AM

By: sayum


Supreme Court of India remitted a case back to the High Court of Jharkhand for fresh adjudication, setting aside the High Court's earlier decision to quash criminal proceedings regarding non-payment of rent for a truck hired by the respondents. The Court emphasized that quashing an FIR without considering the materials collected during investigation, especially when dishonest conduct is alleged, is unjustified.

The Court criticized the High Court for quashing the FIR based solely on the allegations in the complaint without taking into account the materials gathered by the investigating authorities. The judgment stressed that, at the stage of deciding whether to quash an FIR, courts are not required to scrutinize the correctness of the allegations but must look at whether the accusations make out a prima facie case.

The appellant, Somjeet Mallick, had filed a complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC, alleging that the second and third respondents failed to pay rent for his truck despite hiring it for Rs. 33,000 per month for transport between Tata Steel Jamshedpur and Kalinganagar. The truck had been with the respondents since July 2014, but they stopped paying rent after one month, accumulating arrears of over Rs. 12 lakhs. Mallick claimed that despite repeated assurances, the payments were never made, leading to his suspicion that the truck may have been misappropriated.

The Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) took cognizance of the case and issued process under Section 204 CrPC. However, the High Court, exercising powers under Section 482 CrPC, quashed the proceedings, concluding that the matter was civil in nature and that no criminal breach of trust or cheating was made out.

Whether the allegations disclosed a criminal offence under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust) and 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code.

Whether the High Court erred in quashing the FIR and proceedings at the threshold without examining the charge sheet and evidence collected during the investigation.

"Mens Rea Can Be Inferred from Alleged Dishonest Conduct"

The Supreme Court observed that mens rea, or a guilty mind, is an essential component of criminal offences like cheating and breach of trust. It further held that in cases where the accused allegedly retained possession of the hired truck and failed to make payments despite false assurances, a prima facie case of dishonest intention could be made out. The Court emphasized that the FIR’s allegations, supported by evidence gathered during investigation, should have been thoroughly considered before quashing the FIR.

The Supreme Court remitted the case to the High Court, directing it to reconsider the quashing petition after examining the evidence gathered by the investigating authorities. It emphasized that investigating agencies should be allowed to complete their work unless the allegations are clearly frivolous, which was not the case here.

Date of Decision: October 14, 2024

Somjeet Mallick v. State of Jharkhand & Others​.

Similar News