2004 (7) TMI 696 - SC - Indian Laws

SC Upholds FIRs with Evidence in Excise Cases; Stresses Limited Use of Section 482 CrPC for Dismissals Without Evidence.

The SC allowed appeals where material evidence was present, quashing the HC's decision to dismiss FIRs under the Andhra Pradesh Excise and Prohibition ... Challenged the Quashing of FIR by the High Court - Exercise of power u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - transportation or storing of black jaggery/molasses for manufacturing illicit distilled liquor - HELD THAT:- If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. It is not, however, necessary that there should be meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The complaint/F.I.R. has to be read as a whole. If it appears that on consideration of the allegations in the light of the statement made on oath of the complainant or disclosed in the F.I.R. that the ingredients of the offence or offences are disclosed and there is no material to show that the complaint/F.I.R. is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court. When an information is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered, then the mala fides of the informant would be of secondary importance. In all these cases there was either statements of witnesses or seizure of illicit distilled liquor which factors cannot be said to be without relevance. Whether the material already in existence or to be collected during investigation would be sufficient for holding the concerned accused persons guilty has to be considered at the time of trial. At the time of framing the charge it can be decided whether prima facie case has been made out showing commission of an offence and involvement of the charged persons. At that stage also evidence cannot be gone into meticulously. It is immaterial whether the case is based on direct or circumstantial evidence. Charge can be framed, if there are materials showing possibility about the commission of the crime as against certainty. That being so, the interference at the threshold with the F.I.R. is to be in very exceptional circumstances as held in R.P. Kapoor [1960 (3) TMI 45 - SUPREME COURT] and Bhajan Lal cases [1990 (11) TMI 386 - SUPREME COURT]. Ultimately, the acceptability of the materials to fasten culpability on the accused persons is a matter of trial. These are not the cases where it can be said that the FIR did not disclose commission of an offence. Therefore, the High Court was not justified in quashing the FIR in the concerned cases. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals in cases where there was material evidence. It dismissed the appeals where the FIR did not disclose the commission of an offence. The Court directed early investigation and submission of the report u/s 173 of the Code, emphasizing that no opinion on the merits of the case was expressed. Issues Involved:1. Quashing of FIR by the High Court.2. Exercise of power u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.3. Adequacy of material to show commission of an offence.4. Legal principles for quashing proceedings.Summary:Issue 1: Quashing of FIR by the High CourtThe High Court of Andhra Pradesh quashed the FIRs filed by Prohibition and Excise officers alleging offences under the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968, and the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995. The allegations involved transporting or storing black jaggery/molasses for manufacturing illicit distilled liquor. The High Court accepted the accused's plea, holding that there was no material to show the seized articles were intended for manufacturing illicit liquor.Issue 2: Exercise of Power u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The Supreme Court emphasized that the exercise of power u/s 482 of the Code is an exception and not the rule. It is meant to prevent abuse of the process of the court or to secure the ends of justice. The inherent jurisdiction must be exercised sparingly, carefully, and with caution. The Court does not function as a court of appeal or revision while exercising this power.Issue 3: Adequacy of Material to Show Commission of an OffenceThe Supreme Court noted that whether there was adequate material to show the commission of a crime is a matter of trial. The High Court was not justified in quashing the FIRs as there were statements of witnesses or seizures of illicit distilled liquor in some cases. The material's sufficiency for holding the accused guilty is to be considered at the trial stage.Issue 4: Legal Principles for Quashing ProceedingsThe Court referred to several precedents, including R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, outlining categories where inherent power can be exercised to quash proceedings. These include cases where there is a legal bar against the institution, where allegations do not constitute the offence alleged, or where there is no legal evidence to prove the charge.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeals in cases where there was material evidence (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1180-1181/2003, 1184-1189/2003, 1191-1192/2003, and related SLPs). It dismissed the appeals where the FIR did not disclose the commission of an offence (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1183/2003, 1193-1196/2003, and related SLPs). The Court directed early investigation and submission of the report u/s 173 of the Code, emphasizing that no opinion on the merits of the case was expressed.