The Bench of Justice AS Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Introduction
The Supreme Court held that there is no absolute restriction on the High Court's power to interfere in a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) (Now Section 528 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), even if the investigation is at a preliminary stage.
Facts of the Case
The petitioners were accused of misappropriating funds from the Coimbatore Education Foundation for personal use. A civil proceeding was already pending between the petitioners and the de facto complainant. Despite the civil nature of the dispute, a criminal complaint was filed, alleging that the petitioners collected ₹4.3 crores from students in the name of the trust. The Madras High Court refused to quash the FIR, stating that there was some material for investigation, but also acknowledged that the issue was of a civil nature. The petitioners challenged this decision before the Supreme Court.
Issues for Consideration
- Whether the High Court has the power to interfere under Section 482 CrPC when the investigation is still in its preliminary stage.
- Whether the allegations against the petitioners constitute a civil dispute or a criminal offense warranting police investigation.
- Whether the High Court correctly exercised its jurisdiction in dismissing the petition without considering the merits of the case.
Contentions of the Petitioners
The FIR was filed with mala fide intent to harass the petitioners and was a misuse of criminal law to settle a civil dispute. The allegations pertained to financial transactions related to trust funds, which should be resolved in civil proceedings. The High Court failed to consider the plea for quashing the FIR on its merits and improperly dismissed the petition.
Contentions of the Respondents
The allegations involved misappropriation of funds and were serious in nature, warranting a criminal investigation. The High Court rightly refused to interfere, as there was some material to justify the continuation of the investigation. The investigation was still at an early stage, and quashing the FIR would have prematurely halted the process.
Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court observed that the High Court seemed to believe that it could not interfere at an “infancy stage” of the investigation. However, it clarified that there is no such absolute rule preventing intervention under Section 482 CrPC. The Court found that the High Court failed to analyze the merits of the case before dismissing the petition. The approach taken in paragraph 7 of the High Court’s order was termed as "unheard of" by the Supreme Court, as it did not properly address the plea for quashing the FIR. The Supreme Court held that the High Court must examine the case on its merits before deciding on the petition under Section 482 CrPC.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court set aside the Madras High Court’s order and remitted the matter back for a fresh hearing on merits. The Registry of the High Court was directed to list the restored petition for hearing. This judgment reaffirms that High Courts have the discretion to intervene under Section 482 CrPC, even at a preliminary stage of investigation, provided there are valid legal grounds to do so.
