VIJAYANDER KUMAR & ORS. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

Citation: [2014] 1 S.C.R. 1012 · Decided: 11-02-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
8 
c 
[2014] 1 S.C.R. 1012 
VIJAYANDER KUMAR & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1297 of 2004) 
FEBRUARY 11, 2014 
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI, RANJAN GOGOi AND SHIVA 
KIRTI SINGH, JJ.] 
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: 
s.482 - Power of High Court to quash criminal 
proceedings - FIR filed for offences punishable ulss 420 and 
120-8 /PC - Final report by police stating the case to be of a 
civil nature - Rejected by Magistrate and cognizance taken -
0 
High Court declining to interfere - Held: A given set of facts 
may make out a civil wrong as also a criminal offence and 
only because a civil remedy may also be available to 
informant/complainant that itself cannot be a ground to quash 
a criminal proceeding - The real test is whether the allegations 
in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not - When 
E 
informant and witnesses have supported the allegations made 
in the FIR, it would not be proper for the court to evaluate the 
merits of allegations on the basis of documents annexed with 
memo of appeal - There is no good ground to interfere with 
the criminal proceedings against appellants at this stage. 
F 
An FIR for offence.s punishable u/ss 420 and 120-8 
IPC was registered by police against the appellants and 
one 'SS' on a written report of respondent no. 2 stating 
that he as a supplier of cotton yarn to the appellants 
G owed certain amounts from appellants' company; that 
the appellants without his knowledge transferred the 
management, assets and liabilities, to another concern of 
which 'SS' was one of the Directors; that on the 
H 
1012 
VIJAYAN DER KUMAR & ORS. v. STATE OF 
1013 
RAJASTHAN 
assurance of the appellants, respondent no. 2 accepted 
A 
some post dated cheques from 'SS' which got 
dishonoured on the instruction of the said 'SS' to stop 
payment; that, thus, all the accused by conspiracy played 
a fraud on him and cheated him by making false 
statement and induced him to sign some papers. The 
B 
appellants' petition seeking to quash the FIR was 
dismissed. The police then submitted the final report that 
the case was of a civil nature, which was rejected by the 
Magistrate and cognizance was taken. The petition u/s 
482 CrPC seeking to quash the criminal proceedings was c 
rejected by the High Court. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 A given set of facts may make out a civil 
wrong as also a criminal offence and only because a civil 
D 
remedy may also be available to the informant/ 
complainant that itself cannot be a ground to quash a 
criminal proceeding. The real test is whether the 
allegations in the complaint discloses a criminal offence 
or not. [para 12] [1020-8-C] 
E 
Ravindra Kumar Madhanla/ Goenka and Another vs. 
Rugmini Ram Raghav Spinners Private Limited 2009 (6) 
SCR 27 = 2009 (11) sec 529 - relied on. 
Vijayander Kumar and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and 
F 
Another 1999 Criminal law Journal 1849 - referred to. 
1.2 When the informant and witnesses have 
supported the allegations made in the FIR, it would not 
be proper for this Court to evaluate the merits of the 
G 
allegations on the basis of documents annexed with the 
memo of appeal. Such materials can be produced by the 
appellants in their defence in accordance with law for due 
consideration at appropriate stage. [para 11] [1019-H; 
1020-A-B] 
H 
1014 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
1.3 The facts were properly noticed by the High Court 
on earlier occasion while examining the petition preferred 
by the appellants for quashing of FIR of this case. The 
same view has been reiterated by the High Court in the 
order under appeal for not interfering with the order of 
B cognizance by the Magistrate. There is no good ground 
to interfere with the criminal proceedings against the 
appellants at this stage. [para 13] [1020-D-F] 
Thermax Limited and Others Vs. K.M.Johny and 
C Others 2011 (14) SCR 154 =2011 (13) SCC 412; Dalip Kaur 
and Others vs. Jagnar Singh and another 2009 (10) SCR 264 
= 2009 (14) SCC 696; Ani/ Mahajan vs. Bhor Industries 
Limited (2005) 10 SCC 228; and R.Kalyani vs. Janak 
C.Mehta 2008 (14) SCR 1249 = 2009 (1) SCC 516; Devendra 
and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another 2009 (7) 
D scR 872 = 2009 (7) sec 495 - cited. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Case Law Reference: 
1999 Criminal law 
referred to 
para 4 
Journal 1849 
2011 (14) SCR 154 
cited 
Para 8 
2009 (10) SCR 264 
cited 
Para 8 
2008 (14) SCR 1249 
cited 
Para 8 
2009 (7) SCR 872 
cited 
para 9 
2009
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.