Marumakkathayam Law | Partition Is An Act By Which The Nature Of The Property Is Changed, Reflecting An Alteration In Ownership: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claim | Compensation Must Aim To Restore, As Far As Possible, What Has Been Irretrievably Lost: Supreme Court Awards Rs. 1.02 Crore Personal Criticism Of Judges Or Recording Findings On Their Conduct In Judgments Must Be Avoided: Supreme Court Efficiency In Arbitral Proceedings Is Integral To Effective Dispute Resolution. Courts Must Ensure That Arbitral Processes Reach Their Logical End: Supreme Court Onus Lies On The Propounder To Remove All Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding A Will To The Satisfaction Of The Court: Calcutta High Court Deeds of Gift Not Governed by Section 22-B of Registration Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Testimony Of  Injured Witness Carries A Built-In Guarantee Of Truthfulness: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction for Attempted Murder POCSO | Conviction Cannot Be Sustained Without Conclusive Proof Of Minority - Burden Lies On The Prosecution: Telangana High Court Credible Eyewitness Account, Supported By Forensic Corroboration, Creates An Unassailable Chain Of Proof That Withstands Scrutiny: Punjab and Haryana High Court Jammu & Kashmir High Court Grants Bail to Schizophrenic Mother Accused of Murdering Infant Son IT Act | Ambiguity in statutory notices undermines the principles of natural justice: Delhi High Court Dismisses Revenue Appeals Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction Under NDPS Act: Procedural Lapses Insufficient to Overturn Case Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Murder Accused, Points to Possible Suicide Pact in "Tragic Love Affair" Tampering With Historical Documents To Support A Caste Claim Strikes At The Root Of Public Trust And Cannot Be Tolerated: Bombay High Court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