Supreme Court overturns quashing of criminal proceedings in missing beer truck case: State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Akhil Sharda (2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: July 11, 2022

Citation: 2022 INSC 617

Judges: M.R. Shah, J., B.V. Nagarathna, J.

Can a High Court quash criminal proceedings merely because the goods were later recovered, without considering the possibility of a larger conspiracy? The Supreme Court recently addressed this question in a case involving missing trucks loaded with beer, emphasizing that the High Court should not conduct a mini-trial while exercising its powers under Section 482 of the CrPC. The core issue revolves around whether the High Court correctly quashed criminal proceedings arising from the disappearance of trucks carrying beer, despite allegations of a larger conspiracy and the fact that the goods were missing for a period of time. The Supreme Court bench comprised Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, with the judgment authored by Justice M.R. Shah.

Case Background

The case originated from a First Information Report (FIR) lodged by Sanjeet Jaiswal, the manager of M/s Beehive Alcoveb, a licensed firm engaged in the business of beer. On September 7, 2018, M/s Beehive Alcoveb placed an order with M/s United Breweries Limited for the delivery of three trucks of beer, transferring a total of Rs. 92,98,902. The delivery was to be split, with two trucks destined for Lucknow and one for Varanasi. M/s United Breweries Limited engaged SICAL Logistics Limited to arrange for the transportation. SICAL Logistics, in turn, hired two trucks for the delivery to Lucknow.

The beer consignment was dispatched on September 11, 2018. However, on September 13, 2018, the GPS devices of both trucks lost contact with the tracking agency. When the transporter contacted the driver, he was informed that the trucks were near Junabganj, Lucknow, due to “no entry” restrictions. After this communication, neither the drivers nor the vehicles could be traced. Consequently, M/s Beehive Alcoveb lodged an FIR (Case Crime No. 260 of 2018) under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) due to the missing goods despite full payment.

Separately, the Manager of M/s SICAL Logistics also lodged an FIR (Case Crime No. 390 of 2018) against the truck drivers and an unknown person under Sections 420 and 406 of the IPC. Following the investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the respondents in Case Crime No. 260 of 2018, and the Magistrate issued a summoning order on February 13, 2019. Subsequently, a charge sheet was also filed in the case arising out of Case Crime No. 227 of 2019 (Old No. 390 of 2018) at PS Banthra, Lucknow. The goods were eventually delivered to the original informant.

The accused in Criminal Case No. 5694 of 2019 (arising out of FIR No. 260 of 2018) then approached the High Court seeking to quash the summoning order, charge sheet, and entire proceedings. The High Court, exercising its powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, quashed the entire criminal proceedings. Aggrieved by this decision, the State of Uttar Pradesh and the original informant filed the present appeals before the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Arguments

The appellants, represented by Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned ASG, and Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned Senior Advocate, argued that the High Court had erred in quashing the criminal proceedings. They contended that the High Court did not appreciate the larger conspiracy involved and that both FIRs (260 of 2018 and 227 of 2019) were interconnected. They submitted that the High Court had curtailed the scope of the investigation and that the allegations of forging data and uploading incorrect information against the accused needed to be investigated. The appellants also argued that the High Court had conducted a mini-trial, which is not permissible under Section 482 of the CrPC, and that the High Court delivered the judgment after a delay of six months from the date it was reserved.

The respondents, represented by Shri Ranjeet Kumar and Shri Sidharth Dave, learned Senior Advocates, argued that the High Court was correct in quashing the proceedings as the ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC were not met. They submitted that the respondents were not responsible for the missing trucks and that the goods were eventually delivered. They contended that the main dispute was regarding a rebate, which was not even part of the FIR. They argued that the FIR was lodged with mala fide intentions and that the High Court had rightly exercised its powers under Section 482 of the CrPC to prevent abuse of the process of law.

The appellants relied on cases such as Odisha vs. Pratima Mohanty, 2021 SCC Online SC 1222, CBI vs. Thommandru, 2021 SCC Online SC 923, Rajeev Kourav vs. Baisahab, (2020) 3 SCC 317, Neeharika Infrastructure vs. Maharashtra, 2021 SCC Online SC 315, Rajiv Thapar vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330, and Divine Retreat vs. Kerala, (2008) 3 SCC 542. The respondents relied on Ch. Bhajan Lal vs. State of Haryana, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, Indian Oil Corporation vs. N.E.P.C. India Ltd., (2006) 6 SCC 736, Rajiv Thapar (supra), and Jetking Infotrain Ltd. vs. State of U.P., (2015) 11 SCC 730.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following key issues:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.?
2. Whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing the criminal proceedings?
3. Whether the High Court was right in holding that the allegations were not serious and did not require investigation?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court’s judgment that had quashed the criminal proceedings. The Court held that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC by conducting a mini-trial and not appreciating the larger conspiracy involved in the case. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court should not have quashed the proceedings merely because the goods were eventually recovered, especially when there were allegations of a larger conspiracy and the fact that the goods were missing for a period of time.

The Supreme Court observed that the High Court itself had acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations and the need for further investigation, yet it restricted the scope of the investigation and quashed the criminal proceedings. The Court noted that the two FIRs were interconnected and part of a larger conspiracy that needed to be investigated thoroughly.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by conducting a mini-trial and not appreciating the larger conspiracy involved in the case. The Court emphasized that the High Court should not have quashed the proceedings merely because the goods were eventually recovered, especially when there were allegations of a larger conspiracy and the fact that the goods were missing for a period of time. The Court also noted that the High Court itself had acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations and the need for further investigation, yet it restricted the scope of the investigation and quashed the criminal proceedings. The interconnectedness of the two FIRs and the need for a thorough investigation were also key factors.

The Court’s reasoning was rooted in the principle that the High Court should not interfere with the investigation process unless there is a clear abuse of the process of law. In this case, the Court found that the High Court had overstepped its boundaries by delving into the factual aspects of the case and conducting a mini-trial, which is not permissible while exercising powers under Section 482 of the CrPC.

The Supreme Court rejected the argument that the delivery of goods after the incident justified quashing the proceedings. The Court reasoned that the initial disappearance of the trucks and the allegations of a larger conspiracy warranted a thorough investigation, and the High Court should not have interfered at that stage.

The Court quoted from the judgment in Anil Rai vs. State of Bihar, (2001) 7 SCC 318, emphasizing the need for timely delivery of judgments:

“It is true, that for the High Courts, no period for pronouncement of judgment is contemplated either under the Civil Procedure Code or the Criminal Procedure Code, but as the pronouncement of the judgment is a part of the justice dispensation system, it has to be without delay.”

The Court also quoted from Satpal vs. Haryana, (2018) 6 SCC 110, stating:

“The FIR need not be an encyclopedia.”

The Supreme Court did not have any dissenting opinions.

Key Takeaways

• High Courts should not conduct a mini-trial while exercising powers under Section 482 of the CrPC.
• Criminal proceedingsshould not be quashed merely because the goods were eventually recovered if there are allegations of a larger conspiracy.
• The scope of investigation should not be curtailed by the High Court, especially when serious allegations are made.
• High Courts must be circumspect while exercising their inherent powers and should not interfere with the investigation process unless there is a clear abuse of the process of law.
• FIRs need not be encyclopedic, and the investigation should be allowed to proceed based on the allegations made.
• Judgments must be delivered without undue delay.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Akhil Sharda (2022) underscores the importance of allowing the investigation process to run its course, particularly when there are allegations of a larger conspiracy. The High Court’s quashing of criminal proceedings based on the eventual recovery of the goods was deemed an overreach of its powers under Section 482 of the CrPC. The Supreme Court’s judgment reinforces the principle that High Courts should not act as fact-finding bodies during the initial stages of a criminal investigation and should be cautious in interfering with the investigation process. This ruling serves as a significant reminder to High Courts to exercise their inherent powers judiciously and to refrain from conducting mini-trials while deciding on applications for quashing criminal proceedings. The judgment also emphasizes the need for timely delivery of judgments and the importance of a thorough investigation in cases involving serious allegations. This case is a landmark decision that will have significant implications for future cases involving similar circumstances.