DINESHBHAI CHANDUBHAI PATEL versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 1 S.C.R. 62 · Decided: 05-01-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
62
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 1 S.C.R.
DINESHBHAI CHANDUBHAI PATEL
v.
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 12 of  2018)
JANUARY 05, 2018
[R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
s.482 – Scope of – Held: Inherent powers of High Court,
cannot be stretched to any extent – Such powers cannot be equated
with the appellate powers of High Court.
s.482 – Application under – Seeking quashing of FIR (which
was registered pursuant to three complaints) – High Court quashed
the FIR to the extent of offences u/ss.406, 420 and 120B of IPC
and u/ss.3, 7 and 11 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act – However, it did not quash the FIR in
respect of the allegations of creating two bogus powers of attorneys,
blackmailing and extortion, etc. – Cross appeals by the complainants
and the accused – Held: The three complaints and the FIR do disclose
a prima facie commission of various cognizable offences – Therefore,
the High Court should have upheld the entire FIR – In order to
examine as to whether factual contents of FIR disclose any prima
facie cognizable offence or not, High Court cannot act like an
investigating agency and nor can exercise the powers like an
appellate court – High Court exceeded its power while exercising
its inherent jurisdiction u/s. 482.
Allowing the appeals filed by the complainants and
dismissing those filed by the accused persons, the Court
HELD: 1. The inherent powers of the High Court, which
are obviously not defined being inherent in its very nature, cannot
be stretched to any extent and nor can such powers be equated
with the appellate powers of the High Court defined in the Cr.P.C.
The parameters laid down by this Court while exercising inherent
powers must always be kept in mind else it would lead to
committing the jurisdictional error in deciding the case. [Para
34][71-C]
[2018] 1 S.C.R. 62
62
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
63
2. 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 Cr.P.C. The High Court had exceeded its powers
while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. [Paras 32, 33][70-H; 71-A-B]
3. The High court wrongly concluded that some part of the
FIR in question was bad in law because it did not disclose any
cognizable offence against any of the accused persons whereas
only a part of the FIR was good which disclosed a prima facie
case against the accused persons and hence it needed further
investigation to that extent in accordance with law.  In doing so,
the High Court virtually decided all the issues arising out of the
case like an investigating authority or/and appellate authority
decides, by little realizing that it was exercising its inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. at this stage. [Paras
28, 29][70-C-D]
4. 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 was required to be examined keeping in view the
contents of the FIR and prima facie material, if any, requiring no
proof. [Para 30][70-E]
5. At this stage, the High Court could not have appreciated
the evidence nor could have drawn 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. [Para 31][70-F-G]
DINESHBHAI CHANDUBHAI PATEL v. STATE OF GUJARAT
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
64
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 1 S.C.R.
6. The three complaints and the FIR do disclose a prima
facie commission of various cognizable offences alleged by the
complainants against the accused persons and, therefore, the
High Court instead of dismissing the application file

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.