2017 (8) TMI 1587 - SC - Indian Laws

High Court can't impede criminal probes under CrPC Section 482; emphasizes need for thorough investigations

Tilly Gifford Versus Michael Floyd Eshwar And Others

The Supreme Court clarified that the High Court cannot interfere with a criminal investigation under Section 482 of the CrPC unless tainted by clear mala ... Jurisdiction of High Court - scope of criminal investigation - investigation of a criminal proceeding - Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure - HELD THAT:- Taking into account the fact that the inquiry was conducted pursuant to the order of the High Court to unravel the truth surrounding the lodging of the F.I.R. and was not a step in the investigative process which, in any case, has been interdicted by the High Court by the impugned order, we do not consider it prudent to come to one conclusion or the other with regard to the said findings. However the findings of the inquiry would clearly indicate that a large volume of material facts surrounding the lodging of the F.I.R. and its authenticity needs to be investigated and the truth unravelled. But this is what has been interdicted by the High Court - In the above situation, we find ourselves unable to agree with the view taken by the High Court. The F.I.R. in question should be fully investigated in accordance with law and thereafter further legal consequences as may be warranted should be allowed to take effect. Order of High Court set aside - appeal disposed off. Issues:1. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash a criminal proceeding.2. Validity of the FIR and the need for investigation.3. Applicability of the findings of the inquiry report in determining the course of action.Jurisdiction of High Court under Section 482 of CrPC:The Supreme Court analyzed the High Court's order interdicting the investigation of a criminal proceeding. It emphasized that the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not allow the High Court to delve into disputed facts or appreciate the accused's defense. The Court reiterated that unless tainted by clear mala fides, a criminal investigation should not be halted by a Court of Law, especially at the stage of investigation. The limited parameters of the High Court's jurisdiction were highlighted, and the need to avoid premature closure of a criminal investigation was underscored.Validity of FIR and the Need for Investigation:The core issue revolved around the existence of a valid FIR to enable an investigation. The Respondent-accused argued that there was no valid FIR registered as a criminal offense for investigation. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with this contention. It examined statements made during inquiry proceedings and an Enquiry Officer's report, which highlighted serious procedural lapses in the FIR's registration. The Court noted that the findings suggested a requirement for a proper investigation to ascertain the authenticity of the FIR. It directed for a thorough investigation to be conducted within sixty days, emphasizing the importance of unraveling the truth surrounding the FIR.Applicability of Findings in Inquiry Report:The Court referenced findings from the inquiry report, indicating procedural irregularities and potential biases benefiting the accused. While acknowledging the need for a comprehensive investigation to uncover the truth, the Court dismissed a related special leave petition in light of the findings from the inquiry report. The judgment underscored the significance of conducting a full investigation in accordance with the law to determine the legal consequences and upheld the necessity of following due process to ensure justice.---