1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 12  OF 2018

(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.5155 of 2017)

Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel            ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

State of Gujarat & Ors.    ….Respondent(s)

WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.13  OF 2018

(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.5322 of 2017)

Balubhai Ravjibhai Ahir            ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

State of Gujarat & Ors.    ….Respondent(s)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.15  OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.5476 of 2017)

Arjun Shankarbhai Rathod            ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

Harishbhai Ramanbhai Rathod & Ors. Etc.Etc.    ….Respondent(s)

2

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 14  OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.5475 of 2017)

Manish Patel(Advocate)            ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

Harishbhai Ramanbhai Rathod & Ors. Etc.Etc.    ….Respondent(s)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.16   OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.5500 of 2017)

Harishbhai Ramanbhai Rathod            ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

State of Gujarat & Anr.    ….Respondent(s)

AND

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 17 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.5867 of 2017)

Manharbhai Muljibhai Kakadia            ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

State of Gujarat & Ors.    ….Respondent(s)                  

3

J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1) Leave granted.

2) These  appeals  are  filed  against  the  common

final judgment and order dated 10.07.2017 passed

by  the  High  Court  of  Gujarat  at  Ahmedabad  in

Criminal  Misc.  Application  (for  quashing  and  set

aside FIR/Order) No. 16731 of 2016 with Crl. Misc.

Appln. Nos. 13733, 14842/2016, SPCRA Nos. 4387,

4357, 4951/2016, Crl.Misc. Appln. No. 32440/2016

in  Crl.  Misc.  Appln.  No.16731/2016  whereby  the

Single Judge of the High Court partly allowed the

application for quashing the FIR.

3) In order  to  appreciate  the  issues involved in

this bunch of appeals, it is necessary to state few

relevant facts.   The facts  are  taken from the SLP

paper books.

4

4) The dispute arising between the parties to this

bunch of  appeals  essentially  relates  to  a  piece  of

land  bearing  Survey  No.  96/3/2,  Block  No.  121,

admeasuring  5281  sq.  mts.,  Plot  No.  71,

admeasuring  3475  sq.  mts.  of  Town  Planning

Scheme No. 36 (Althan), situated at village Althan,

Taluka & city -Surat (hereinafter referred to as  "the

disputed land”).

5) The  disputed  land  was  jointly  owned by  the

members of  one Rathore family,  who according to

them, belonged to Halpai caste.  

6) Six  members  of  the  Rathore  Family

(hereinafter  referred to  as  the  Complainants)  filed

one joint complaint to the Commissioner of Police,

Surat  on  25.04.2011  (Annexure-P-2)  complaining

therein  that  one  person  by  name  -  Dineshbhai

Chandubhai Patel in conspiracy with several other

named persons jointly defrauded and deceived the

5

complainants by taking advantage of their illiteracy,

poverty and unawareness got executed bogus Power

of Attorney with bogus signatures in relation to the

disputed  land.  It  was  alleged  that  these  persons

again  in  furtherance  with  the  conspiracy  got  the

disputed  land  transferred  in  favour  of  several

persons  and  illegally  got  the  construction  maps

sanctioned to enable them to do construction over

the disputed land.  

7) In short and in substance, the grievance of the

complainants  was  that  the  above  named  persons

conspired  together  and  snatched  away  from  the

complainants their aforementioned valuable land by

committing  fraud,  cheating,  deception,  breach  of

trust etc. on them.    

8) The  complainants  enclosed  all  disputed

documents  along  with  their  complaint  to  show

prima facie case alleged to have been committed by

6

the  above-named  persons  and  prayed  to  the

Commissioner of Police to investigate the entire case

in relation to their land and bring the investigation

to  its  logical  end  by  first  registering  the  FIR and

then  after  holding  a  proper  investigation,  file  the

charge  sheet  in  the  competent  Court  against  all

those  found  involved  in  the  case  and  prosecute

them  for  the  offences  which  they  have  allegedly

committed and punish them under the Indian Penal

Code and other related Acts.  

9) This  was  followed  by  another  complaint

(Annexure P-6) filed with the Collector (SIT), Surat

on 23.01.2012 against six named persons  seeking

therein the prosecution of those persons for having

committed  the  alleged  offences  punishable  under

Sections 34, 114, 120-B , 420 ,465 ,468, 471 and

476  of  the  Indian  Penal  Code,  1860  (hereinafter

referred to as “IPC”) read with Sections 3, 7 and 11

7

of   the  Scheduled  Castes  and  Scheduled  Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The complaint

also  set  out  the  allegations  with  details  alike  the

previous one with some new facts.

10) Yet another third complaint was filed with the

Collector, District Disputes Redressal Forum, Surat

(Annexure-P-13)  on  07.10.2013  by  one  of  the

complainants  against  8  named  persons  making

more or less same allegations made in the first two

complaints  with  more  detailed  facts  seeking  to

prosecute  them  for  the  commission  of  offences

named in the earlier complaints.

11) It  is  these  three  complaints  which  led  to

registration of the FIR (CR No.I.C.R. No. 90 of 2016)

on 06.06.2016 with Khatodara Police Station, Surat

giving rise to filing of several criminal applications,

bail  petitions  etc.  one  after  the  other  at  the

8

instances of the named accused persons and others

alleged to be involved in the cases.  

12) These cases were filed in the lower Court, the

High  Court  and  also  in  this  Court  one  after  the

other during the last 4 years.  The Courts passed

several orders with observations made therein.

13) The present bunch of appeals arises out of the

criminal  applications  filed  by  the  named  accused

persons  in  the  aforementioned  three  complaints

under  Section  482  of  the  Code  of  Criminal

Procedure,  1973  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  “the

Code”) in the Gujarat High Court seeking therein a

prayer to quash the aforementioned FIR.  

14) By impugned judgment dated 10.07.2017, the

Single Judge of the High Court partly allowed the

criminal  applications  and  passed  the  following

operative portion of the judgment contained in Para

88 which reads as under:

9

“(1) The First Information Report, so far as the offence punishable  under  Sections  406, 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and the Atrocities Act is concerned, is quashed.  The investigation  as  regards  the  allegations  of creating  the  two  bogus  power  of  attorneys and erasing  of  73AA is  concerned,  shall  be completed  by  the  Commissioner  of  Police, Surat in accordance with law.

(2) The  Commissioner  is  also  directed  to undertake  the  investigation  as  regards  the persons,  who  had  approached  the  land owners  and  had  obtained  the  thumb impressions on the complaints addressed to the Commissioner of Police, Surat.  To put it in other words, I direct the Commissioner to undertake proper investigation as regards the allegations  of  blackmailing  and  extortion leveled against the particular persons.”

15) It is against this judgment, both parties, i.e.,

the complainants and the accused persons have felt

aggrieved and filed these appeals.  

16) So far as the accused persons are concerned,

they have challenged that part of the order by which

the  High  Court  has  dismissed  their  criminal

applications  and  declined  to  quash  the  FIR  in

relation  to  some  offences  alleged  against  them.

According to the accused persons, the High Court

10

should  have  quashed  the  entire  FIR  instead  of

quashing part of it.  

17) So far as the complainants are concerned, they

have challenged that part of the judgment by which

the High Court has quashed the FIR in relation to

some offences.  According to the Complainants, the

High Court should have upheld the entire FIR as it

being legal and proper,  it  should have been given

full  effect  in  accordance  with  law  against  the

accused persons.  

18) This  is  how,  the  entire  controversy  is  now

again  raised  before  this  Court  in  this  bunch  of

appeals by way of special leave at the instance of

the  complainants  and  accused  persons  in  their

respective appeals.   

19) Heard Mr.  Mukul  Rohtagi,  Dr.  A.M.  Singhvi,

Mr.  Yatin  Oza,  Ms.  Meenakshi  Arora  and  Mr.

Shamik Sanjanwala, learned senior counsel for the

11

accused persons and Mr. Dushyant Dave and Mr.

Harin  P.  Raval,  learned  senior  counsel  for  the

complainants.

20)  Mr.  Mukul  Rohatgi,  Dr.  A.M.  Singhvi,  Mr.

Yatin Oza and Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned senior

counsel appearing for the accused persons, in their

respective appeals, strenuously contended that the

High Court had rightly quashed the FIR in part but

erred  in  not  proceeding  to  quash  the  FIR  in  full

because in the light of the findings on which the FIR

was quashed in part, nothing then remained for the

investigating authorities to probe in the remaining

FIR which was upheld.  

21) It is this submission, which was elaborated by

all the senior counsel by placing reliance on several

documents, observations of the High Court made in

the earlier round of litigation and in the impugned

judgment with a view to show that the entire FIR is

12

an abuse of legal process and caused harassment to

the accused persons. It was urged that FIR does not

make out any much less  prima facie case against

any of  the accused persons as the parties having

settled the matter in writing and the complainants

having  accepted  the  huge  consideration  from the

accused persons, there does not arise any cause to

the  Complainants  to  now  file  such  belated  FIR

against  the  accused  persons  in  relation  to  the

subject  matter  in  question.   According  to  the

learned counsel, it is also barred.  

22) In reply, learned senior counsel Mr. Dushyant

Dave  and  Harin  P.  Rawal  appearing  for  the

complainants  urged  that  the  High  Court  should

have dismissed the criminal applications filed by the

accused  persons  and  upheld  the  entire  FIR  as  a

whole for being probed as, according to them, the

FIR  did  disclose  prima  facie cognizable  offences

13

against the accused persons named therein. It was

urged  that  keeping  in  view  the  nature  of  the

offences, the law of limitation does not apply as has

been held by this Court in number of similar cases.

23) Learned counsel further urged that there was

no justification much less legal justification on the

part of the High Court to have quashed the FIR in

part and hence the judgment to that extent deserves

to be set aside.

24) It is this submission, which was elaborated by

the  learned senior  counsel  by placing reliance  on

several documents filed by them including placing

reliance on the observations of  the High Court in

the  earlier  round  of  litigation  and  the  impugned

judgment  and  at  the  same  time  also  denied  the

documents filed by the accused persons including

their contents and correctness.

14

25) Having  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the

parties at length and on perusal of the record of the

case, we are inclined to accept the submissions of

the learned counsel appearing for the Complainants

finding  force  therein  whereas  we  do not  find  any

merit  in  the  submissions  urged  by  the  learned

counsel appearing for the accused persons.  

26)    The  law  on  the  question  as  to  when  a

registration  of  the  FIR  is  challenged  seeking  its

quashing by the accused under Article 226 of the

Constitution or Section 482 of the Code and what

are the powers of the High Court and how the High

Court should deal with such question is fairly well

settled.

27)  This Court in  State of West Bengal & Ors.

vs. Swapan Kumar Guha & Ors. (AIR 1982 SC 949)

had  the  occasion  to  deal  with  this  issue.  Y.V.

Chandrachud,  the  learned  Chief  Justice  speaking

15

for  Three  Judge  Bench  laid  down  the  following

principle:

“Whether an offence has been disclosed or not must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each particular case.  If on a consideration of the relevant materials, the  Court  is  satisfied  that  an  offence  is disclosed,  the  Court  will  normally  not interfere  with  the  investigation  into  the offence  and  will  generally  allow  the investigation in the offence to be completed for  collecting  materials  for  proving  the offence.

The  condition  precedent  to  the commencement of investigation under S.157 of the Code is that the F.I.R. must disclose, prima  facie,  that  a  cognizable  offence  has been committed.  It is wrong to suppose that the police  have an unfettered discretion to commence investigation under S.157 of the Code.  Their right of inquiry is conditioned by  the  existence  of  reason  to  suspect  the commission of a cognizable offence and they cannot, reasonably, have reason so to suspect unless the F.I.R.,  prima facie,  discloses the commission  of  such  offence.   If  that condition is satisfied, the investigation must go on.  The Court has then no power to stop the investigation,  for  to do so would be  to trench upon the lawful power of the police to investigate into cognizable offences.”   

28) Keeping in view the aforesaid principle of law,

which  was  consistently  followed  by  this  Court  in

16

later  years  and  on  perusing  the  impugned

judgment,  we are  constrained to  observe that  the

High Court without any justifiable reason devoted

89 pages judgment (see-paper book) to examine the

aforesaid question and then came to a conclusion

that some part of the FIR in question is bad in law

because it does not disclose any cognizable offence

against any of the accused persons whereas only a

part of the FIR is good which discloses a prima facie

case  against  the  accused  persons  and  hence  it

needs  further  investigation  to  that  extent  in

accordance with law.

29) In  doing  so,  the  High  Court,  in  our  view,

virtually  decided  all  the  issues  arising  out  of  the

case like an investigating authority or/and appellate

authority  decides,  by  little  realizing  that  it  was

exercising  its  inherent  jurisdiction  under  Section

482 of the Code at this stage.

17

30) The High Court, in our view, failed to see the

extent  of  its  jurisdiction,  which  it  possesses  to

exercise  while  examining  the  legality  of  any  FIR

complaining  commission  of  several  cognizable

offences by accused persons.  In order to examine

as  to  whether  the  factual  contents  of  the  FIR

disclose any  prima facie cognizable offences or not,

the  High  Court  cannot  act  like  an  investigating

agency  and  nor  can  exercise  the  powers  like  an

appellate Court. The question, in our opinion, was

required  to  be  examined  keeping  in  view  the

contents of the FIR and prima facie material, if any,

requiring no proof.  

31) At  this  stage,  the  High  Court  could  not

appreciate  the  evidence  nor  could  draw  its  own

inferences  from  the  contents  of  the  FIR  and  the

material  relied  on.   It  was  more  so  when  the

material  relied  on  was  disputed  by  the

18

Complainants and vice-versa.  In such a situation,

it becomes the job of the investigating authority at

such  stage  to  probe  and  then  of  the  Court  to

examine the questions once the charge sheet is filed

along with such material as to how far and to what

extent reliance can be placed on such material.

32) In  our  considered  opinion,  once  the  Court

finds  that  the  FIR  does  disclose  prima  facie

commission of any cognizable offence, it should stay

its hand and allow the investigating machinery to

step in to initiate the probe to unearth the crime in

accordance  with  the  procedure  prescribed  in  the

Code.

33) The very fact that the High Court in this case

went into the minutest details in relation to every

aspect of the case and devoted 89 pages judgment

to  quash  the  FIR  in  part  lead  us  to  draw  a

conclusion  that  the  High  Court  had  exceeded  its

19

powers  while  exercising  its  inherent  jurisdiction

under Section 482 of the Code. We cannot concur

with such approach of the High Court.

34) The inherent powers of the High Court, which

are obviously not defined being inherent in its very

nature, cannot be stretched to any extent and nor

can  such  powers  be  equated  with  the  appellate

powers of the High Court defined in the Code. The

parameters laid down by this Court while exercising

inherent powers must always be kept in mind else it

would lead to committing the jurisdictional error in

deciding the case.  Such is the case here.

35) On perusal of the three complaints and the FIR

mentioned above, we are of the considered view that

the  complaint  and  FIR,  do  disclose  a  prima facie

commission  of  various  cognizable  offences  alleged

by the  complainants  against  the  accused persons

and, therefore, the High Court instead of dismissing

20

the application filed by the accused persons in part

should have dismissed the application as a whole to

uphold the entire FIR in question.  

36) Learned counsel for the accused persons after

the arguments were over filed brief note and placed

reliance  on  2  decisions  of  this  Court  reported  in

(2015)  11  SCC  730   and  (2011)  3  SCC  351  in

support of their contentions. We have perused the 2

decisions.  In  our  view,  both  the  decisions  are

distinguishable  on facts,  whereas  the  decision on

which we have placed reliance is more on the point.

It  is  for  the  reason that  in  the  first  place,  the  2

decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the

accused persons were the cases where a complaint

was  filed  in  the  Court  under  Section  138  of  the

Negotiable Instruments Act and in other case under

some sections of IPC.  It is this complaint which was

sought  to  be  quashed  by  invoking  the  inherent

21

jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code.  Such is

not the case here.  Secondly, the decision therefore

turned on the facts involved in respective cases.

37) In the case at hand, the challenge is especially

to  registration  of  the  FIR.  This  Court  in  Swapan

Kumar Guha (supra) case examined the exercise of

inherent powers of the High Court in the context of

a challenge to an FIR.  In our view, therefore, the

law laid down in  Swapan Kumar Guha  (supra) is

directly  applicable  to  the  facts  of  this  case  as

against the law laid down in the two cited decisions.

38) In the light of foregoing discussion, it is now

necessary that the matter, which is subject matter

of FIR in question, needs to be investigated in detail

by the investigating authorities in accordance with

procedure prescribed in the Code.  

39) We  have  purposefully  refrained  from making

any  observation on the  merits  and also  refrained

22

from giving our reasoning on factual issues arising

out of the case, else it may cause prejudice to the

parties and also hamper the on-going investigating

process undertaken by the police authorities.

40) Though learned senior  counsel  appearing for

the parties argued the issues touching the merits of

the case by referring to hundreds of documents but,

in our view, it is wholly unnecessary to enter into

the factual arena once we record a finding that a

prima facie case  is  made  out  on  reading  the  FIR

including  the  documents  enclosed  therein.   We,

therefore, do not consider it necessary to go in detail

of  their  submissions.   Needless  to  say,  all  these

submissions  and  unproved  and  disputed

documents  on  which  reliance  was  placed  by  the

parties would be dealt with at a later stage as and

when the occasion arises.

23

41) In  view  of  foregoing  discussion,  the  appeals

filed by the complainants, i.e.,  criminal appeals @

S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos. 5476 & 5475 of 2017 are allowed.

The impugned judgment is set aside. As a sequel to

our order, the appeals filed by the accused persons,

i.e., criminal appeals @ S.L.P.(Crl.) Nos. 5155, 5322,

5500 & 5867/2017 are dismissed.

42) As  a  consequence,  the  criminal  applications

filed by the accused persons under Section 482 of

the  Code  out  of  which  these  appeals  arise  are

dismissed.  

43) Since the FIR is pending for quite some time,

we direct the investigating authorities to complete

the investigation of the case without any bias and

prejudices  strictly  in  accordance  with  law  and

proceed ahead expeditiously.   

44) Before parting, we consider it proper to clarify

that this order should not be construed as having

24

decided  any  issue  on  merits  either  way.  The

investigating  authorities  would  not,  therefore,  be

influenced  in  any  manner  by  any  of  the

observations  made  by  the  lower  Courts  and  the

High  Court  in  their  respective  orders  while

investigating the matter.

………...................................J. [R.K. AGRAWAL]

                                     …...……..................................J.

        [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE] New Delhi; January 5, 2018