LexANURAG BHATNAGAR & ANR. versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 1599 : 2025 INSC 895 Anurag Bhatnagar & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 18084 of 2024) 25 July 2025 [Pankaj Mithal* and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ.] Issue for Consideration (i) Whether the High Court in exercise of its power u/s.482 of CrPC or under Art.226/227 of the Constitution is justified in refusing to quash the FIR No.380/2005, u/ss.420, 120-B and 34 of the IPC and the order dated 01.07.2005 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate directing for the registration of the aforesaid FIR; (ii) whether an application u/s.156(3) of the CrPC could have been filed without approaching the police authorities; (iii) whether the order dated 01.07.2005 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate is an order passed without application of mind, irrespective of the fact that it states that the parties were “heard” and the documents were “perused”; (iv) whether the High Court can deny quashing of the order dated 01.07.2005 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate and the FIR registered pursuant to it for the reason that the investigations have been completed and the chargesheets have been filed against the accused persons; (v) whether the nature of dispute raised in the offending FIR is of a civil nature and there is no involvement of criminality when both sides have previously lodged FIRs originating from the same MoU dated 11.03.1995; and (vi) whether the present FIR amounts to a successive FIR based upon the same allegations as contained in an earlier FIR No.326/2004 and as such cannot be investigated independently. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Complainant- SHL was allotted land for the purposes of construction and operation of a hotel – A Non-banking finance company-VLS finance joined the project as financial consultant and assured SHL that it would launch a public issue of 10 lakh equity shares of Rs.10/- each on a premium of Rs.100/- per share to resolve its financial crises – Promise was found to be against SEBI * Author 1600 [2025] 7 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports guidelines – Dispute arose between the parties, which resulted in filing of arbitration proceeding, FIRs and complaints – In this background, SHL on 01.07.2005 straight away filed an application u/s.156(3) CrPC before the Metropolitan Magistrate – Whereupon on the same day an order was passed directing for registration of the FIR, pursuant to which FIR No.380/2005 u/ss.420, 120-B and 34 IPC was registered – VLS and some of its officers moved the High Court u/s.482 CrPC for the quashing of the FIR No.380/2005 and the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate dated 01.07.2005 – The said petitions were dismissed by the High Court – Correctness: Held: 1. This Court is of the opinion that the High Court has rightly refused to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction so as to interfere with the FIR as the investigations have been completed and the chargesheets have been filed. [Para 44] 2. In the present case, there is no legal flaw in the order passed by the Magistrate dated 01.07.2005 directing for the registration of the FIR – The order clearly states that the Magistrate is satisfied that the allegations indeed make out a cognizable offence for the purposes of investigation – The said satisfaction recorded by the Magistrate cannot be disturbed in exercise of inherent powers – Therefore, if in pursuance of the said order, the FIR has been registered which discloses a cognizable offence, the same cannot be struck down at this stage – The powers conferred upon the court u/s.482 CrPC or Art.226/227 of the Constitution of India are discretionary in nature and it is not obligatory upon the court to exercise the said inherent power in each and every case, even if the order impugned suffers from minor procedural irregularity, provided there is no miscarriage of justice – Thus, in a case where pursuant to the order of the Magistrate, which is not illegal or without jurisdiction, an FIR has been registered which discloses a cognizable offence and, thereafter, upon investigation, chargesheets have been submitted, there is apparently no justification for the court to exercise discretionary jurisdiction so as to quash the FIR or the order of the Magistrate. [Para 43] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.156(3) – Whether an application u/s.156(3) CrPC could have been filed without approaching the police authorities: Held: 1. On a conspicuous reading of the pro
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.