JITUL JENTILAL KOTECHA versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. ETC

Citation: [2021] 11 S.C.R. 9 · Decided: 12-11-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
9
JITUL JENTILAL KOTECHA
v.
STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. ETC.
(Criminal Appeal Nos 1328-1333 of 2021)
NOVEMBER 12, 2021
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
B V NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
s. 482 – Inherent powers of High Court – Exercise of – On
facts, dispute over title of land – FIR registered against respondents
u/ss 465, 467, 468 and 120B IPC by the appellant – Respondents
nos. 2 to 7 filed petitions u/s 482 before the High Court for quashing
of FIR – Interim order by the High Court that investigation to be
continued but charge-sheet to be filed only with its permission –
Draft charge-sheet placed before the High Court for offences
punishable u/ss. 385, 389, 418, 477, 506(2), 120B and 34 IPC –
Draft charge-sheet also arraigned respondents nos. 8 and 9 – High
Court quashed the FIR except for the allegations against respondents
nos. 4 and 5 u/s. 385 IPC – On appeal, held: High Court
transgressed the limitations on the exercise of its jurisdiction u/s.482
in quashing the FIR and all consequential proceedings, and by
restricting the police from submitting the charge-sheet before the
magistrate and by further perusing the contents of the draft charge-
sheet in the proceedings before it – High Court cannot place reliance
on a “draft charge-sheet” which is yet to be placed before the
magistrate to quash the criminal proceedings u/s 482 – High Court’s
direction to not submit report to Magistrate prior to placing the
same before it was devoid of any reasoning – Interim direction
amounted to an unnecessary interference in the investigative process
envisaged under the CrPC – Furthermore, allegations in the FIR
prima facie indicate that respondent nos 6 and 7 entered into
champertous agreements with the legal heirs of SB and were alleged
to be involved in the extortion of money from the appellant – High
Court held that the allegations on their face disclose that respondent
nos 4 and 5 committed the offence of extortion u/s 385 IPC and
directed that the investigation be continued against them – However,
[2021] 11 S.C.R. 9
9
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
10
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 11 S.C.R.
the High Court completely failed to examine the allegation of criminal
conspiracy qua the other accused – Thus, when a specific role was
attributed to the accused, the High Court could not have quashed
the FIR u/s.482 – As regards, respondent nos. 8 and 9 who were
named as accused in the draft charge-sheet and not in the FIR,
instituted quashing petitions, before the draft charge-sheet was
placed before the High Court and the High Court proceeded to
entertain their petitions u/s.482 – Interference by the High Court in
the investigation against respondent nos. 8 and 9 was at a premature
stage and not warranted – There has been a clear abuse of the
process – Thus, the order passed by the High Court set aside.
s. 482 – Inherent powers of High Court – Exercise of – Held:
Inherent powers by High Court must be exercised sparingly and
with circumspection – Inherent powers do not confer arbitrary
jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whim and caprice
– Inherent powers cannot be invoked to sidestep statutory provisions
– High Court can neither direct an investigating agency to submit
the investigation report before it nor can it quash a criminal
proceeding u/s. 482 relying on such report when the report has not
been submitted to the Magistrate.
Allowing the appeals arising out of SLP (Crl) Nos 5736-39
of 2019 and dismissing the appeals arising out of SLP (Crl) Nos
5734 and 5735 of 2019, the Court
HELD: 1. The High Court must exercise its inherent
powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedurre,
1973 sparingly and with circumspection. The inherent powers do
not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act
according to whim or caprice. The inherent powers of the High
Court cannot be invoked to sidestep statutory provisions. [Para
20][29-F-H]
Jugesh Sehgal v. Shamsher Singh Gogi (2009) 14 SCC
683 : [2009] 10 SCR 857; Simrikhia v. Dolley
Mukherjee (1990) 2 SCC 437 : [1990] 1 SCR 788;
Pratibha v. Rameshwari Dev (2007) 12 SCC 369 :
[2007] 9 SCR 1038 – referred to.
2.1. The police have a statutory right to investigate a
cognizable offence under sections 154 and 156 of the CrPC. Sub-
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
11
Section 2(i) of section 173 of the CrPC provides that after the
completion of investigation, the police officer in charge of the
police station shall forward the final report to the magistrate who

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