STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. versus AKHIL SHARDA & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 6 S.C.R. 772 · Decided: 11-07-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
772
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 6 S.C.R.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
v.
AKHIL SHARDA & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No.840 of 2022)
JULY 11, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 482 – Quashing of
criminal proceedings – Sustainability of – On facts, FIRs u/ss. 406
and 420 IPC – Allegations relating to disappearance of trucks
loaded with beer from highways – High Court quashed the criminal
proceedings arising out of the FIR including the charge-sheet filed
by the Investigating Agency as well as the summoning order passed
by the trial court – On appeal, held: High Court virtually conducted
a mini trial, which was not permissible at this stage – At the stage of
deciding the application u/s. 482, the High Court cannot get into
appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considered –
Overall allegations are disappearance of the trucks transporting
the beer/contraband goods which are subject to the rules and
regulations of the Excise Department and Excise Law – High Court
quashed the criminal proceedings by observing that there was no
loss to the Excise Department – High Court did not appreciate and/
or consider the allegations of a larger conspiracy, and that both
the FIRs are interconnected and part of the main conspiracy which
is very serious if found to be true – Thus, the High Court exceeded
in its jurisdiction – Judgment and order passed by the High Court
quashing the criminal proceedings is unsustainable, and thus,
quashed and set aside.
Judgment/Order: Pronouncement of – Speedy disposal – Need
for – High Court delivered the judgment after a period of six months
from the date it was reserved for judgment – Held: It is always
prudent that the High Court delivers the judgment at the earliest
after the arguments are concluded and the judgment is reserved.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Having gone through the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court by which the High Court set
[2022] 6 S.C.R. 772
772
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
773
aside the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR bearing Case
Crime No. 260 including the charge-sheet filed by the
Investigating Agency as well as the summoning order passed by
the trial court, in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
it appears that the High Court virtually conducted a mini trial,
which as such is not permissible at this stage and while deciding
the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No mini trial can be
conducted by the High Court in exercise of powers under Section
482 Cr.P.C. jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the application
under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court cannot get into
appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considered.
[Para 7][782-F-H]
1.2 Even the High Court itself has opined that the
allegations are very serious and it requires further investigation
and that is why the High Court has directed to conduct the
investigation by CB-CID with respect to the FIR No. 227 of 2019.
However, while directing the CB-CID to conduct further
investigation/investigation, the High Court restricted the scope
of investigation. The High Court did not appreciate and consider
the fact that both the FIRs namely FIR Nos.260 of 2018 and 227
of 2019 can be said to be interconnected and the allegations of a
larger conspiracy are required to be investigated. It is alleged
that the overall allegations are disappearance of the trucks
transporting the beer/contraband goods which are subject to the
rules and regulations of the Excise Department and Excise Law.
The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings by observing
that there was no loss to the Excise Department. However, the
High Court did not at all appreciate the allegations of the larger
conspiracy. The FIR need not be an encyclopedia. [Para 7.2,
7.3][783-C-E]
Satpal v. Haryana (2018) 6 SCC 110 – relied on.
1.3 Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that the
allegation of missing of two trucks was the beginning of the
investigation and when during the investigation it was alleged
that earlier also a number of trucks were missing transporting
contraband goods, the FIR should not have been restricted to
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. v. AKHIL SHARDA &
ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
774
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 6 S.C.R.
missing of the two trucks only and return of on the goods
thereafter. The High Court has not at all appreciated and/or
considered the allegation of the larger conspiracy and that both
the FIRs/criminal cases a

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