KAPTAN SINGH versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS

Citation: [2021] 8 S.C.R. 408 · Decided: 13-08-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
408
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 8 S.C.R.
KAPTAN SINGH
v.
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS
(Criminal Appeal No. 787 of 2021)
AUGUST 13, 2021
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD AND
M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
s. 482 – Inherent powers of High Court – Exercise of – On
facts, criminal proceedings u/ss. 147, 148, 149, 406, 329 and 386
IPC pending against the private respondents – High Court in exercise
of powers u/s. 482 quashed the criminal proceedings – Sustainability
of – Held: Not sustainable – High Court exceeded its jurisdiction
in quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers u/s. 482
– High Court failed to consider the material collected during the
investigation/inquiry and even the statements recorded by the
Investigating officer – High Court failed to appreciate and consider
the fact that there were very serious triable issues/allegations which
were required to be gone into and considered at the time of trial –
High Court lost sight of crucial aspects which emerged during the
course of the investigation – High Court grossly erred in entering
into the merits of the allegations as if the High Court was exercising
the appellate jurisdiction and/or conducting the trial – Also, the
High Court erred in observing that original complainant has no
locus – Order passed by the High Court quashing the criminal
proceedings in exercise of powers u/s. 482 is quashed and set aside.
s. 482 – Power under – Scope and limit of – Discussed.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in
quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. [Para 9.3][419-D-E]
1.2 The High Court in exercise of powers under Section
482 Cr.P.C. quashed the criminal proceedings for the offences
under Sections 147, 148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 of IPC. When
[2021] 8 S.C.R. 408
408
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
409
the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
quashed the criminal proceedings, by the time the Investigating
Officer after recording the statement of the witnesses, statement
of the complainant and collecting the evidence from the incident
place and after taking statement of the independent witnesses
and even statement of the accused persons, filed the
charge-sheet before the Magistrate for the offences under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC and even the
Magistrate also took the cognizance. From the impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court, it does not appear
that the High Court took into consideration the material collected
during the investigation/inquiry and even the statements
recorded. If the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was at the
stage of FIR in that case the allegations in the FIR/Complaint
only are required to be considered and whether a cognizable
offence is disclosed or not is required to be considered. However,
thereafter when the statements are recorded, evidence is
collected and the charge-sheet is filed after conclusion of the
investigation/inquiry the matter stands on different footing and
the Court is required to consider the material/evidence collected
during the investigation. Even at this stage also, the High Court
is not required to go into the merits of the allegations and/or
enter into the merits of the case as if the High Court is exercising
the appellate jurisdiction and/or conducting the trial. [Para
9.1][418-A-F]
1.3 The High Court failed to appreciate and consider the
fact that there were very serious triable issues/allegations which
were required to be gone into and considered at the time of trial.
The High Court lost sight of crucial aspects which emerged during
the course of the investigation. The High Court failed to
appreciate and consider the fact that the document-joint notarized
affidavit of Accused No. 2 and MD under which according to
Accused no.2, Rs. 25 lakhs was paid and the possession was
transferred to her itself is seriously disputed. Whether Rs. 25
lakhs has been paid or not the accused have to establish during
the trial, because the accused are relying upon the said document
and payment of Rs. 25 lakhs as mentioned in the joint notarized
affidavit. It is also required to be considered that the first
agreement to sell in which Rs. 25 lakhs is stated to be sale
KAPTAN SINGH v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND
OTHERS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
410
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 8 S.C.R.
consideration and there is reference to the payment of Rs.10
lakhs by cheques. It is a 

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