Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction When Death Is Caused by an Unforeseeable Forest Fire, Criminal Prosecution Cannot Be Sustained Without Proof of Rashness, Negligence, or Knowledge: Supreme Court Proof of Accident Alone is Not Enough – Claimants Must Prove Involvement of Offending Vehicle Under Section 166 MV Act: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal for Compensation in Fatal Road Accident Case Income Tax | Search Means Search, Not ‘Other Person’: Section 153C Collapses When the Assessee Himself Is Searched: Karnataka High Court Draws a Clear Red Line License Fee on Hoardings is Regulatory, Not Tax; GST Does Not Bar Municipal Levy: Bombay High Court Filing Forged Bank Statement to Mislead Court in Maintenance Case Is Prima Facie Offence Under Section 466 IPC: Allahabad High Court Upholds Summoning Continued Cruelty and Concealment of Infertility Justify Divorce: Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Divorce Disguising Punishment as Simplicity Is Abuse of Power: Delhi High Court Quashes Dismissals of Civil Defence Volunteers for Being Stigmatic, Not Simpliciter Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD"

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​.

Latest Legal News