TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court dismisses accused's appeals, orders expeditious investigation without bias.</h1> <h3>Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel, Balubhai Ravjibhai Ahir, Arjun Shankarbhai Rathod, Manish Patel (Advocate), Harishbhai Ramanbhai Rathod, Manharbhai Muljibhai Kakadia Versus State of Gujarat, Harishbhai Ramanbhai Rathod & Ors. Etc. Etc.</h3> The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and dismissed the accused's appeals in a case involving the legality of an FIR. The Court emphasized ... Conspiracy - bogus signatures in relation to the disputed land - the grievance of the complainants was that the named persons conspired together and snatched away from the complainants their aforementioned valuable land by committing fraud, cheating, deception, breach of trust etc. on them - HELD THAT:- The High Court failed to see the extent of its jurisdiction, which it possesses to exercise while examining the legality of any FIR complaining commission of several cognizable offences by Accused persons. In order to examine as to whether the factual contents of the FIR disclose any prima facie cognizable offences or not, the High Court cannot act like an investigating agency and nor can exercise the powers like an appellate Court. The question, in our opinion, was required to be examined keeping in view the contents of the FIR and prima facie material, if any, requiring no proof. At this stage, the High Court could not appreciate the evidence nor could draw its own inferences from the contents of the FIR and the material relied on. It was more so when the material relied on was disputed by the Complainants and vice-versa. In such a situation, it becomes the job of the investigating authority at such stage to probe and then of the Court to examine the questions once the charge sheet is filed along with such material as to how far and to what extent reliance can be placed on such material - once the Court finds that the FIR does disclose prima facie commission of any cognizable offence, it should stay its hand and allow the investigating machinery to step in to initiate the probe to unearth the crime in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Code. Though learned senior Counsel appearing for the parties argued the issues touching the merits of the case by referring to hundreds of documents but, in our view, it is wholly unnecessary to enter into the factual arena once we record a finding that a prima facie case is made out on reading the FIR including the documents enclosed therein - the appeals filed by the complainants are allowed. Issues Involved:1. Legality of the FIR and the extent of quashing by the High Court.2. Jurisdiction and powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.3. Prima facie disclosure of cognizable offenses in the FIR.4. Proper procedure for investigation and the role of the investigating authorities.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the FIR and the extent of quashing by the High Court:The appeals arose from a dispute over a piece of land, where the complainants alleged fraud, cheating, and other offenses by the accused. The High Court partly quashed the FIR, stating that certain sections did not disclose cognizable offenses while others did. Both parties were aggrieved; the accused wanted the entire FIR quashed, while the complainants argued that the entire FIR should be upheld.2. Jurisdiction and powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 482 by acting as an investigating and appellate authority. The High Court should have only determined whether the FIR disclosed prima facie cognizable offenses and not delved into the merits of the case or the evidence.3. Prima facie disclosure of cognizable offenses in the FIR:The Supreme Court found that the FIR did disclose prima facie commission of various cognizable offenses. The High Court's detailed examination and partial quashing were inappropriate. The Supreme Court reiterated that once a prima facie case is established, the investigation should proceed without interference.4. Proper procedure for investigation and the role of the investigating authorities:The Supreme Court directed that the investigation should be completed expeditiously and without bias. It clarified that the order should not be construed as a decision on the merits of the case, and the investigating authorities should not be influenced by previous observations made by the lower courts or the High Court.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the complainants, set aside the High Court's judgment, and dismissed the appeals filed by the accused. The criminal applications filed by the accused under Section 482 were dismissed, and the investigation was ordered to proceed in accordance with the law. The Court refrained from making any observations on the merits to avoid prejudicing the investigation.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
