Date of the Judgment: 14 October 2024
Citation: (2024) INSC 772
Judges: J.B. Pardiwala, J., Manoj Misra, J.
Can a High Court quash a criminal proceeding at the initial stage without considering the materials collected during the investigation? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where a complainant alleged that the accused failed to pay rent for a truck and its whereabouts were unknown. The court held that the High Court should not have quashed the criminal proceedings without examining the investigation materials. This judgment, delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra, emphasizes the importance of considering all evidence before deciding on the quashing of a criminal case. The majority opinion was authored by Justice Manoj Misra.
Case Background
The appellant, Somjeet Mallick, filed a complaint alleging that the respondents, his tenants, had defaulted on rent payments for his truck. On 10 July 2014, an agreement was made between the appellant and the accused wherein the truck was rented for a period up to 31 March 2016, with effect from 14 July 2014, at a monthly rent of Rs. 33,000, excluding driver and helper salaries. The truck was given to the accused. The accused paid one month’s rent after deducting Tax Deducted at Source (TDS). However, despite repeated promises, they failed to pay the remaining rent, which amounted to Rs. 12,49,780.
The appellant filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Jamshedpur, alleging the above. The CJM directed the police to investigate the matter. During the investigation, the police issued a notice under Section 41A of the CrPC to the accused, but they did not appear. Subsequently, the police requested a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) against the accused, which was granted by the CJM on 30 June 2017.
Aggrieved by the order of the CJM, the accused filed an application under Section 482 of the CrPC before the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, seeking to quash the order and the criminal proceedings. While this application was pending, the CJM took cognizance of the matter on 20 February 2020 and issued processes under Section 204 of the CrPC. The accused then amended their application before the High Court to include a prayer to quash the cognizance order.
The High Court quashed the cognizance order and all further proceedings, allowing the complainant to pursue civil remedies. The complainant then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 10 July 2014 | Agreement between the appellant and the accused to rent the truck. |
| 14 July 2014 | Truck given to the accused. |
| 31 March 2016 | End date of the rental agreement. |
| 12 November 2016 | CJM directs police to investigate based on application under Section 156(3) CrPC. |
| 30 June 2017 | CJM issues NBW against the accused. |
| 20 February 2020 | CJM takes cognizance of the matter and issues processes under Section 204 CrPC. |
| 01 February 2024 | High Court quashes the cognizance order and all further proceedings. |
| 14 October 2024 | Supreme Court allows the appeal and remits the matter to the High Court. |
Course of Proceedings
The High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, exercising its powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, quashed the order of cognizance passed by the CJM and all further proceedings in the case. The High Court reasoned that there was no allegation of entrustment in the First Information Report (FIR), and therefore, the offence of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) was not made out. Additionally, the High Court stated that since one month’s rent was paid, there was no dishonest intention from the beginning, and the matter was essentially a case of recovery of rent, which should be pursued through civil remedies.
The High Court also did not consider the charge sheet filed by the police, which included materials collected during investigation. The High Court did not consider the fact that the whereabouts of the truck were not known.
Legal Framework
The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the following legal provisions:
- Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): This section empowers a Magistrate to order an investigation by the police into a cognizable offense.
- Section 41A of the CrPC: This section deals with the procedure for appearance before a police officer.
- Section 482 of the CrPC: This section grants inherent powers to the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice.
- Section 204 of the CrPC: This section deals with the issue of process by a Magistrate.
- Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section defines and penalizes the offense of criminal breach of trust. “Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits ‘criminal breach of trust’.”
- Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section defines and penalizes the offense of cheating. “Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
- Section 173(2) of the CrPC: This section deals with the police report after investigation.
Arguments
Submissions on behalf of the Appellant:
- The FIR disclosed that after paying one month’s rent, no further rent was paid despite false assurances, which warranted an investigation.
- The High Court did not consider the materials collected during investigation, which resulted in the filing of a charge sheet.
- The High Court failed to consider that the whereabouts of the truck were unknown, suggesting misappropriation or disposal by the accused in violation of the agreement, which could constitute criminal breach of trust.
Submissions on behalf of the Accused-Respondents:
- The FIR did not disclose the commission of any offense, justifying the High Court’s decision to quash the proceedings.
- There was no specific allegation in the FIR regarding the disposal or misappropriation of the truck, which is essential for a case of criminal breach of trust.
- The offense of cheating was not made out, as there was no dishonest intention from the beginning as one month’s rent was paid.
- The High Court was justified in quashing the cognizance order and further proceedings.
Submissions on behalf of the State:
- The State submitted that the truck was rented to the accused for plying, but its present location was unknown and could not be ascertained despite efforts.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| FIR disclosed commission of offence | FIR disclosed non-payment of rent despite false assurances, warranting investigation. | Appellant |
| FIR did not disclose any offence. | Accused | |
| FIR alleges that the truck was rented to the accused for plying, but its present location was unknown. | State | |
| High Court did not consider materials | High Court did not consider the materials collected during investigation, which resulted in the filing of a charge sheet. | Appellant |
| High Court was justified in quashing the cognizance order and further proceedings. | Accused | |
| Criminal breach of trust | The whereabouts of the truck were unknown, suggesting misappropriation or disposal by the accused. | Appellant |
| No specific allegation in the FIR regarding the disposal or misappropriation of the truck. | Accused | |
| Dishonest Intention | Dishonest intention is evident from the non-payment of rent despite false assurances. | Appellant |
| No dishonest intention from the beginning as one month’s rent was paid. | Accused |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue before the court was:
- Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the criminal proceedings at the initial stage without considering the materials collected during the investigation.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the criminal proceedings at the initial stage without considering the materials collected during the investigation. | The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not justified in quashing the criminal proceedings. | The Supreme Court emphasized that at the stage of deciding whether to quash a criminal proceeding, the allegations in the FIR, police report, or complaint, along with materials collected during investigation, must be considered. The court noted that the High Court failed to consider the charge sheet and the fact that the truck’s whereabouts were unknown. The court also pointed out that the FIR alleged a dishonest conduct on the part of the accused, which, if supported by materials, would disclose commission of a cognizable offence, warranting investigation. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court did not explicitly cite any authorities in this judgment.
| Authority | Court | How it was Considered |
|---|---|---|
| Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Parliament | The Court considered this section to understand the power of a Magistrate to order an investigation by the police into a cognizable offense. |
| Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Parliament | The Court considered this section to understand the procedure for appearance before a police officer. |
| Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Parliament | The Court considered this section to understand the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. |
| Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Parliament | The Court considered this section to understand the issue of process by a Magistrate. |
| Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Parliament | The Court considered this section to understand the definition and punishment for the offense of criminal breach of trust. |
| Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Parliament | The Court considered this section to understand the definition and punishment for the offense of cheating. |
| Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Parliament | The Court considered this section to understand the police report after investigation. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and remitted the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration. The Supreme Court held that the High Court should have considered the materials collected during the investigation before deciding to quash the FIR, the cognizance order, and the proceedings.
| Submission by Parties | Treatment by the Court |
|---|---|
| The FIR did not disclose commission of any offence. | The Court held that the FIR did disclose a dishonest conduct on the part of the accused, which, if supported by materials, would disclose commission of a cognizable offence. |
| The High Court did not consider the materials collected during investigation. | The Court agreed with this submission and held that the High Court ought to have considered the materials collected during investigation before taking a call on the prayer for quashing the FIR. |
| There was no specific allegation in the FIR regarding disposal or misappropriation of the truck. | The Court stated that the allegation that rent was not paid by itself, in ordinary course, would presuppose retention of possession of the vehicle by the accused. In such circumstances as to what happened to that Truck becomes a matter of investigation. If it had been dishonestly disposed of by the accused, it may make out a case of criminal breach of trust. |
| The offense of cheating is not made out inasmuch as dishonest intention from the very beginning is not disclosed by the averments in the FIR. | The Court held that when a party alleges that the accused, despite taking possession of the Truck on hire, has failed to pay hire charges for months together, while making false promises for its payment, a prima facie case, reflective of dishonest intention on the part of the accused, is made out which may require investigation. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The Court considered Section 156(3) of the CrPC to highlight the power of the Magistrate to direct police investigation.
- The Court considered Section 41A of the CrPC to highlight the procedure for appearance before a police officer.
- The Court considered Section 482 of the CrPC to highlight the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of process.
- The Court considered Section 204 of the CrPC to highlight the issue of process by a Magistrate.
- The Court considered Section 406 of the IPC to highlight the definition of criminal breach of trust, suggesting that the facts of the case could potentially fall under this provision if the truck was dishonestly disposed of.
- The Court considered Section 420 of the IPC to highlight the definition of cheating, suggesting that the facts of the case could potentially fall under this provision if dishonest intention is proven.
- The Court considered Section 173(2) of the CrPC to highlight that a petition to quash the FIR does not become infructuous on submission of a police report, but when a police report has been submitted, the Court must apply its mind to the materials submitted in support of the police report before taking a call whether the FIR and consequential proceedings should be quashed or not.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of considering the materials collected during the investigation before quashing a criminal proceeding. The Court noted that the High Court had not considered the charge sheet, which included the findings of the investigation. The Court also highlighted that the FIR alleged a dishonest conduct on the part of the accused, which, if supported by materials, would disclose commission of a cognizable offence, warranting investigation. The Court observed that the whereabouts of the truck were unknown, which could indicate misappropriation or disposal by the accused, potentially amounting to criminal breach of trust.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Failure to consider materials collected during investigation | 40% |
| Allegation of dishonest conduct | 30% |
| Unknown whereabouts of the truck | 30% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
Logical Reasoning:
FIR filed alleging non-payment of rent and unknown whereabouts of truck
Police investigation conducted and charge sheet filed
High Court quashed proceedings without considering investigation materials
Supreme Court held that High Court should have considered investigation materials
Matter remitted to High Court for fresh consideration
The Court reasoned that the High Court should not have quashed the FIR at the threshold without looking into the materials collected during the course of the investigation. The Court emphasized that the existence of mens rea can be inferred from the act in question as well as the surrounding circumstances and conduct of the accused. The Court also noted that the FIR is not an encyclopedia of all imputations and what is to be looked at is the gravamen of the accusations contained therein to find out whether, prima facie, some cognizable offence has been committed or not.
The Court further reasoned that the allegation that rent was not paid by itself, in ordinary course, would presuppose retention of possession of the vehicle by the accused. In such circumstances as to what happened to that Truck becomes a matter of investigation. If it had been dishonestly disposed of by the accused, it may make out a case of criminal breach of trust.
The Court stated that, “To commit an offence, unless the penal statute provides otherwise, mens rea is one of the essential ingredients.” The Court also noted that, “FIR is not an encyclopedia of all imputations.” The Court held that, “when the FIR alleges a dishonest conduct on the part of the accused which, if supported by materials, would disclose commission of a cognizable offence, investigation should not be thwarted by quashing the FIR.”
There were no minority opinions in this case.
Key Takeaways
- High Courts should not quash criminal proceedings at the initial stage without considering the materials collected during the investigation.
- The absence of specific allegations in the FIR does not automatically warrant quashing of the proceedings if the gravamen of the accusations suggests a cognizable offense.
- The whereabouts of a vehicle, when not returned after a rental agreement, is a relevant factor that warrants investigation.
- Dishonest intention can be inferred from the conduct of the accused and surrounding circumstances.
Directions
The Supreme Court remitted the matter to the High Court to decide the quashing petition afresh in accordance with law after considering the materials collected by the investigating agency during the course of the investigation. All contentions and pleas were kept open for the parties to urge before the High Court.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the High Court should not quash a criminal proceeding at the initial stage without considering the materials collected during the investigation. This judgment reinforces the principle that a thorough investigation is necessary before deciding on the quashing of a criminal case and that the High Court should not interfere with the investigation process at the threshold if the FIR discloses a cognizable offense. This is not a change in the previous position of law but a reiteration of the existing law.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Somjeet Mallick vs. State of Jharkhand underscores the importance of a thorough investigation in criminal cases. The Court held that the High Court erred in quashing the criminal proceedings without considering the materials collected during the investigation. The matter was remitted back to the High Court for fresh consideration. This judgment serves as a reminder that High Courts must exercise caution before interfering with the investigation process, especially when there are allegations of dishonest conduct that warrant a detailed inquiry.
Category
Parent Category: Criminal Law
Child Categories: Quashing of FIR, Criminal Breach of Trust, Cheating, Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 406, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 420, Indian Penal Code, 1860
Parent Category: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Child Category: Section 156(3), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 41A, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 204, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 173(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Parent Category: Indian Penal Code, 1860
Child Category: Section 406, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 420, Indian Penal Code, 1860
FAQ
Q: What was the main issue in the Somjeet Mallick vs. State of Jharkhand case?
A: The main issue was whether the High Court was justified in quashing criminal proceedings without considering the investigation materials.
Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?
A: The Supreme Court held that the High Court should have considered the investigation materials before quashing the proceedings and remitted the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration.
Q: What is the significance of this judgment?
A: The judgment emphasizes that High Courts should not interfere with the investigation process at the threshold if the FIR discloses a cognizable offense. It also highlights the importance of considering all evidence before deciding on the quashing of a criminal case.
Q: What does the term “mens rea” mean, and why is it important in this case?
A: “Mens rea” refers to the mental element of a crime, i.e., the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing. In this case, the court noted that the existence of mens rea can be inferred from the act in question as well as the surrounding circumstances and conduct of the accused. It is important to determine if there was a dishonest intention to commit the crime.
Q: What is criminal breach of trust?
A: Criminal breach of trust is defined under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It involves the dishonest misappropriation or conversion of property by someone who has been entrusted with it. In this case, the court suggested that if the truck was dishonestly disposed of by the accused, it may make out a case of criminal breach of trust.