Supreme Court upholds High Court decision on petitioners' protection, allows investigation to proceed

The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition, upholding the High Court's decision to protect the petitioner's officers from arrest but allowing the investigation to proceed. The court emphasized that the police investigation and NGT proceedings operate in different spheres, and the petitioner's contentions did not warrant quashing the FIR.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of the FIR.
2. Delay in lodging the complaint.
3. Discrepancy in the number of vehicles purchased.
4. Pendency of civil appeals before the Supreme Court.
5. Allegations of cheat devices in vehicles.
6. Jurisdiction of police investigation versus NGT proceedings.

Detailed Analysis:

Quashing of the FIR:
The petitioner sought to quash the FIR registered against them for offenses under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. The Supreme Court reiterated that courts should not thwart any investigation unless no cognizable offense is disclosed. The court emphasized that quashing should be an exception and used sparingly, reinforcing the principle from King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmed and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal.

Delay in Lodging the Complaint:
The petitioner argued that the complaint was lodged after a significant delay of over 2.5 years. The court held that mere delay in lodging a complaint is not sufficient ground to quash an FIR. This principle is well-settled and does not warrant further precedents.

Discrepancy in the Number of Vehicles Purchased:
The petitioner contended that the complainant purchased only 3 vehicles, as per the VAHAN Portal, contrary to his claim of 7 vehicles. The court stated that such factual disputes must be established during investigation/trial and cannot be resolved in a petition to quash the FIR.

Pendency of Civil Appeals Before the Supreme Court:
The petitioner argued that the police cannot investigate issues that are sub judice before the Supreme Court in civil appeals arising from NGT orders. The court clarified that the NGT proceedings focused on environmental damage and did not address individual grievances of vehicle purchasers. Thus, the pendency of civil appeals does not preclude individuals from lodging complaints if they suffered due to representations made by the manufacturers.

Allegations of Cheat Devices in Vehicles:
The complaint alleged that the vehicles sold by the petitioner contained cheat devices, contrary to the manufacturer's representations. The court noted that the question of whether such devices were installed and whether representations were made are factual matters to be investigated. The court referred to global developments, including the diesel-gate scandal, to highlight the context of the allegations.

Jurisdiction of Police Investigation Versus NGT Proceedings:
The court distinguished between the broad environmental concerns addressed by the NGT and the specific grievances of individual vehicle purchasers. The interim order by the Supreme Court in civil appeals related to NGT directions does not deter individuals from seeking police investigation for their specific grievances.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition, upholding the High Court's decision to protect the petitioner's officers from arrest but allowing the investigation to proceed. The court emphasized that the police investigation and NGT proceedings operate in different spheres, and the petitioner's contentions did not warrant quashing the FIR.

---