REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL  APPEAL No. 506  OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.6689 of 2018)

Rafiq Ahmedbhai Paliwala  ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

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

                 J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the final

judgment and  order  dated  11.12.2017  passed  by

the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad   in

Criminal Misc. Application(for quashing & Set aside

FIR) No.29936 of 2017  whereby the High Court

1

allowed the said application filed by respondent

Nos.2­17 herein.  

3. This appeal involves a short point as would be

clear from the facts stated infra.

4. By impugned order, the High Court, in

exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of

the  Code of  Criminal Procedure, 1973(hereinafter

referred to as “the Code”) allowed the petition filed

by respondent Nos. 2 to 17 herein  and quashed FIR

being I­CR No. 67 of 2017 registered with the

Gaekwad Haveli Police Station, Ahmadabad in part

insofar it relates to the offences punishable under

Sections 392, 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860(hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and

upheld it insofar as it relates to the offences

punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 323

of IPC read with Section 135 (1) of the GP Act.  

2

5. The complainant has felt aggrieved by the

impugned order and has filed this appeal by way of

special leave in this Court.

6. So, the short question, which arises for

consideration in this appeal,   is whether the High

Court was justified in allowing the petition and

quashing the FIR insofar as it relates to the offences

punishable under Sections 392, 395 and 397 IPC.

7. The order impugned reads as under:  

“Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the materials on record, I am of the view that even if the entire case of the prosecution is believed or accepted as true, none of the ingredients to constitute the offence of Sections 392, 395 or 397 are spelt out.  By any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that the common object of the unlawful assembly was to commit dacoity.

In such circumstances, I have no hesitation in quashing the FIR so far as Sections 392, 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned.  So far as the other offences are concerned, the investigation shall proceed in accordance with law.

3

With the above, this application is disposed of.  Direct service is permitted.”

8. Having heard the learned counsel for the

parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we

are constrained to allow the appeal and set aside

the impugned order.

9. In our view, the High Court erred in

entertaining the petition filed by respondent Nos. 2

to 17 under Section 482 of the Code and  further

erred in allowing it in part.  

10. It is not in dispute that no proper investigation

could be made by the Investigating Officer (IO)

much less concluded on the basis of the FIR lodged

by the complainant and before it could be brought

to its logical conclusion, the impugned order

intervened resulting in quashing of the FIR itself in

relation to cognizable offences which were of more

serious in nature than the remaining one  which

survived for being tried.  

4

11. The High Court, in our view, instead of

quashing the FIR at such a preliminary stage

should have directed the IO to make proper

investigation on the basis of the FIR and then file

proper charge  sheet  on the  basis  of the  material

collected in the investigation accordingly. It was,

however, not done.  It was more so because, we find

that FIR did disclose  prima facie  allegations of

commission of concerned offences.

12. We cannot, therefore, countenance the

approach of  the High Court when it  proceeded to

quash the  FIR  partly in relation to  more serious

offences  (Sections 392, 395 and 397 IPC) without

allowing the IO to make proper investigation into its

allegations.

13. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the

appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The

impugned order is set aside.  

5

14. We  are,  however, informed that  pursuant to

the directions issued by the High Court, the charge

sheet has been filed in relation to the minor

offences, which survived after quashing of the FIR.

Be that as it may, the IO shall now make full and

proper investigation into the allegations made in the

original FIR lodged and after conclusion of the

investigation will file additional charge sheet in

relation to any other offences, if found made out.  

15. Needless to say, the IO will make investigation

strictly in accordance with law without being

influenced  by  any  observations. Let this  be  done

within 3 months as an outer limit.           

………...................................J. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]                                     ....……..................................J.

       [DINESH MAHESHWARI] New Delhi; March 15, 2019.

6