KAPIL AGARWAL AND OTHERS versus SANJAY SHARMA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2021] 2 S.C.R. 145 · Decided: 01-03-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
145
   [2021] 2 S.C.R. 145
145
KAPIL AGARWAL AND OTHERS
v.
SANJAY SHARMA AND OTHERS
(Criminal Appeal No. 142 of 2021)
MARCH 01, 2021
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
M.R. SHAH, JJ.]
Constitution of India:
Art. 226 – Writ petition – For quashing FIR u/ss. 420/406
IPC – Pursuant to termination of contract of distributorship of the
complainant, the manufacturing company demanded outstanding
amount due on the complainant – Cheque issued by the complainant
for the outstanding amount was dishonoured and case u/s. 138 of
NI Act pending – Complaint alleging misappropriation of funds
against one of the officers of the manufacturing company resulted
in negative final police report – Another complaint of complainant
u/s. 156(3) Cr.P.C against officers of the Company (appellants)
pending before the Court – After a period of about 2 years,
impugned FIR u/ss. 406/420 IPC by the complainant against the
appellants (offices of the Company) – Petition u/Art. 226, seeking
quashing of the FIR – Refused by High Court – Appeal to Supreme
Court – Held: There is no bar to lodge an FIR with the same
allegations and averments on which earlier complaint case was filed
– Therefore lodging of the previous complaint u/s. 156(3) Cr.P.C
which is pending, would not effect maintainability of the impugned
FIR – However, if the subsequent FIR is found to be abuse of process
of law in order to harass the accused, the same can be quashed in
exercise of powers u/Art. 226 or s. 482 of Cr.P.C. in exercise of its
inherent powers – The facts of the present case show that the
impugned FIR is an abuse of process of law with a view to harass
the accused – Therefore, High Court ought to have quashed the
same to secure the ends of justice – Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 – s. 482.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. It is not correct to say that the impugned FIR
would not be maintainable, and deserves to be quashed and set
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
146
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 2 S.C.R.
aside for the reason that as on the same allegations, the private
respondent-complainant has filed an application under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C., which is pending before the Magistrate. As per
Section 210 Cr.P.C., when in a case instituted otherwise than on
a police report, i.e., in a complaint case, during the course of the
inquiry or trial held by the Magistrate, it appears to the Magistrate
that an investigation by the police is in progress in relation to the
offence which is the subject matter of the inquiry or trial held by
him, the Magistrate shall stay the proceedings of such inquiry or
trial and call for a report on the matter from the police officer
conducting the investigation. It also provides that if a report is
made by the investigating police officer under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
and on such report cognizance of any offence is taken by the
Magistrate against any person who is an accused in the complaint
case, the Magistrate shall inquire into or try together the
complaint case and the case arising out of the police report as if
both the cases were instituted on a police report. It also further
provides that if the police report does not relate to any accused
in the complaint case or if the Magistrate does not take
cognizance of any offence on the police report, he shall proceed
with the inquiry or trial, which was stayed by him, in accordance
with the provisions of Cr.P.C. Thus, merely because on the same
set of facts with the same allegations and averments earlier the
complaint is filed, there is no bar to lodge the FIR with the police
station with the same allegations and averments. [Para 5]
[156-D-H; 157-A-D]
2. However, at the same time, if it is found that the
subsequent FIR is an abuse of process of law and/or the same
has been lodged only to harass the accused, the same can be
quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution or in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
In that case, the complaint case will proceed further in accordance
with the provisions of the Cr.P.C. [Para 6][157-E-F]
3. Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or
under Article 226 of the Constitution is designed to achieve
salutary purpose that criminal proceedings ought not to be
permitted to degenerate into weapon of harassment. When the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
147
Court is satisfied that criminal proceedings amount to an abuse
of process of law or that it amounts to bringing pressure upon
accused, in exercise of inherent powers, such proceedings can

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