SKODA AUTO VOLKSWAGEN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.

Citation: [2020] 11 S.C.R. 786 · Decided: 26-11-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.A. BOBDE · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
786
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 11 S.C.R.
SKODA AUTO VOLKSWAGEN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
v.
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.
(Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 4931 of 2020)
NOVEMBER 26, 2020
[S. A. BOBDE, A.S. BOPANNA AND
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
s. 482 – Petition under – Seeking quashing of FIR registered
u/s. 34, 471, 468, 467, 420, 419 and 406 IPC against a company
engaged in manufacture, import and sale of passenger vehicles –
High Court rejected prayer for quashing the FIR – Special Leave
Petition – Plea that police cannot investigate an issue, the substratum
of which is subjudice before Supreme Court against order passed by
National Green Tribunal (NGT) and that there was long delay in
lodging the complaint – Held: If perusal of FIR leads to disclosure
of an offence even broadly, law courts are barred from usurping
jurisdiction of police – The order of NGT (appeal against which is
pending before Supreme Court) passed on the applications which
were broad and general, cannot be taken as an impediment to lodge
a complaint, for an individual purchaser of car – Substratum of
police complaint cannot be said to be subjudice before Supreme Court
– Interference with impugned order not called for.
Dismissing the SLP, the Court
HELD: 1. The law is well settled that Courts would not
thwart any investigation.  If a perusal of the first information report
leads to disclosure of an offence even broadly, law courts are
barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two
organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities
and one ought not to tread over the other sphere. [Para 41][798-
G-H; 799-C]
King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmed AIR 1945 PC
18; State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) 1 Suppl.
SCC 335 : [1990] 3 Suppl. SCR 259; S.M. Datta v.
State of Gujarat (2001) 7 SCC 659 : [2001] 2 Suppl.
SCR 140 – relied on.
[2020] 11 S.C.R. 786
786
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
787
2. The mere delay on the part of the 3rd Respondent-
complainant in lodging the complaint, cannot by itself be a ground
to quash the FIR. The question whether the 3rd Respondent-
complainant purchased 3 vehicles as revealed by the VAHAN
Portal of the Government or 7 vehicles as claimed by him in his
complaint, is a question of fact which has to be established only
in the course of investigation/trial. In a petition for quashing the
FIR, the Court cannot go into disputed questions of fact.
[Paras 18, 19][793-F-G]
3. The order of the NGT, passed on the applications filed
by certain individuals not claiming as purchasers of vehicles,
cannot be taken as an impediment for an individual who purchased
cars from the manufacturers, to lodge a complaint, if he has actually
suffered on account of any representation made by the
manufacturers. Two original applications came to be filed before
the NGT in the year 2015, alleging that the manufacturers of the
vehicles in question were employing deceit devices. The filing of
the original applications coincided with the issue of notice by the
Automotive Research Association of India to the manufacturers.
The applicants before the NGT had not sought any relief for
themselves, as purchasers of vehicles. The reliefs sought by the
applicants before the NGT were broad and general. This is why
the NGT, by its final order dated 07.03.2019 directed only the
CPCB to consider the initiation of prosecution in the light of the
applicable statutory regime, while ordering the manufacturers to
deposit Rs.500 crores as compensation for the damage caused
to the environment. The interim order passed by this Court not
to take any coercive steps has to be understood only in the
context of the directions of the NGT which had became the subject
matter of the Civil Appeals. [Paras 21, 22, 23 and 27][794-B-E;
795-A]
4. The question whether deceit devices are installed in the
cars purchased by the 3rd respondent and the question whether
there was any representation in this regard to the petitioner, are
all questions of fact, peculiar and particular to the 3rd respondent.
NGT had no occasion to examine the cars purchased by the 3rd
respondent. At this stage no one can presume whether the
defence of the manufacturer to the police complaint will be purely
SKODA AUTO VOLKSWAGEN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v.
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
788
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 11 S.C.R.
on a question of fact or purely on a question of law or on mixed
questions of fact and law. If the pet

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