- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
M/S Jayant Vitamins Ltd. v. Chaitanyakumar And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
This appeal was filed by M/s Jayant Vitamins Ltd. challenging the order dated April 12, 1990 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench in Misc. Criminal Case No. 42 of 1990. The appellant-company had lodged a complaint dated November 4, 1988 (relating to an incident in October 1986) against the first respondent, Chaitanyakumar (arrayed as A-2), and four others, alleging criminal conspiracy, cheating, and criminal breach of trust under Sections 420 and 408 read with Section 34 IPC. A case was registered on November 5, 1988 as Crime No. 286 of 1988 at Ratlam Police Station; documents were seized on November 5 and 6, 1988.
After about nine months, the investigating officer concluded that the allegations concerned an internal company dispute, found no basic evidence, and closed the investigation. On September 23, 1989, the Sub-Inspector was transferred, and thereafter, under the Superintendent of Police’s direction, further investigation was undertaken, which was admitted to be incomplete as of the date of the Supreme Court’s decision.
The first respondent moved the High Court under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the investigation insofar as it concerned him. The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the investigation in Crime No. 286 of 1988 against the petitioner. The appellant-company appealed against that order.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the High Court was justified in quashing an ongoing police investigation (against the first respondent) under Section 482 CrPC in Crime No. 286 of 1988.
- Whether further investigation was legally permissible in the case, particularly in light of Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The High Court committed a grave error on facts and law in quashing the investigation.
- The High Court's observation that “The allegation is that this amount was withdrawn by the petitioner” was asserted to be factually incorrect.
- The High Court allegedly misunderstood and misappreciated the FIR, which the appellant described as a combined narration containing various instances.
Respondents' Arguments
- The High Court's order was justified, including in light of the first investigating officer's final report closing the investigation and the State's submission before the High Court that a final report was proposed to be sent.
- Even if otherwise, no interference was warranted due to prolonged delay in investigation.
- Relying on State of U.P. v. R.K. Srivastava (1989) 4 SCC 59, it was argued that absent specific allegations in the FIR constituting the offences, allowing investigation to continue would amount to abuse of the process of court.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| State of W.B v. Swapan Kumar Guha (1982) 1 SCC 561 | Referenced by the High Court while assessing whether the necessary ingredients of an offence (noted in the opinion as under Section 415) were made out, in the context of quashing. | The Supreme Court noted that the High Court referred to this decision but held the High Court was not justified in quashing an investigation that was still in progress. |
| R.P Kapur v. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866, 1960 Cri LJ 1239 | Referenced by the High Court in support of exercising inherent powers to quash proceedings/investigation. | The Supreme Court acknowledged the High Court's reliance but concluded that the High Court lacked justification to quash the ongoing investigation on the reasons it gave. |
| State of U.P v. R.K Srivastava (1989) 4 SCC 59 | Cited by the respondents to argue that in the absence of specific FIR allegations constituting offences, investigation should not continue to avoid abuse of process. | The Supreme Court held that R.K. Srivastava had no application to the facts of the present case. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court examined the parties' submissions, the impugned High Court order, and connected papers, and concluded that the High Court was not justified in quashing an investigation that was still underway. It emphasised that further investigation is legally permissible under Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The Court recorded the State counsel's representation (upon being asked) that the investigation was not yet complete and that the State would reach a definite conclusion regarding culpability only after completion of the investigation. The Court reiterated the principle, noted as repeatedly stated in various Supreme Court decisions, that investigation into an offence is a statutory function of the police; superintendence of the police is vested in the State Government; and courts are not justified in interfering with investigation without compelling and justifiable reason.
Addressing the respondents' reliance on State of U.P. v. R.K. Srivastava, the Court held that the decision had no application to the present facts. The Court further declined to make additional observations on the merits, stating that doing so might affect either party at some stage. Nonetheless, it maintained that the High Court was not justified in quashing the investigation for the reasons stated in its order.
Holding and Implications
ALLOWED; IMPUGNED ORDER SET ASIDE. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order that had quashed the investigation in Crime No. 286 of 1988 against the first respondent.
As a direct consequence, the police investigation was permitted to continue, including further investigation as contemplated by Section 173(8) CrPC, and the State was to reach its conclusion on culpability upon completion of the investigation. The opinion does not state any broader implications beyond restoring the investigation and reiterating that courts should not interfere with police investigation absent compelling and justifiable reasons.
S. Ratnavel Pandian, J.— This appeal is directed by M/s Jayant Vitamins Ltd. canvassing the correctness of the order dated April 12, 1990 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench in Misc. Criminal Case No. 42 of 1990 allowing the petition filed by the first respondent, Chaitanyakumar. The appellant-company preferred a complaint dated November 4, 1988 with reference to an incident in October, 1986 against the first respondent (arrayed as A 2) and four others before the police under Sections 420, 408 read with Section 34 IPC on the allegations of criminal conspiracy, cheating, criminal breach of trust. On the basis of the complaint, a case was registered on November 5, 1988 in Crime No. 286 of 1988 of Ratlam Police Station and the investigation proceeded with. On November 5 and 6, 1988, a number of documents were seized. However, after 9 months it appears that the investigating officer arrived at a conclusion that as the allegations were found to be of internal dispute of the company and as there was no basic evidence, there was no hope of success and consequently he closed the investigation. On September 23, 1989, the Sub-Inspector of Ratlam Police Station was transferred. Thereafter, under the direction of the Superintendent of Police, further investigation in respect of the said offences was carried on which is admittedly not yet complete till date.
2. While the matter stood thus, the first respondent filed an application under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the investigation carried on in pursuance of the crime registered so far as he was concerned. The High Court after holding that the necessary ingredients to make out an offence under Section 415 have not been made and after making reference to the decisions of this Court in State of W.B v. Swapan Kumar Guha (1982) 1 SCC 561 and R.P Kapur v. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866, 1960 Cri LJ 1239 allowed the application and concluded thus:
“The investigation in pursuance of registration of Crime No. 286 of 1988 registered against the petitioner is quashed.”
3. The appellant has preferred this appeal challenging the order. Mrs Nalini Chidambaram, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant attacked the order of the High Court strenuously contending that the High Court has committed a grave error both on facts and law. According to her, the observation of the High Court, “The allegation is that this amount was withdrawn by the petitioner” is factually incorrect and the High Court has misunderstood and misappreciated the allegations in the FIR which is given in a combined form consisting of various instances. Opposing the above submission, Mr N. Natarajan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents after making reference to the final report of the first Investigating Officer closing the investigation and the submission made by the counsel appearing for the State before the High Court that the final report was proposed to be sent in the case, has vehemently urged that the High Court was justified in passing this impugned order and that at any rate, no interference is called for even on the ground of prolonged delay of investigation. Relying on a decision of this Court in State of U.P v. R.K Srivastava (1989) 4 SCC 59 Mr Natarajan submitted that in the absence of any specific allegations in the FIR to constitute the offences complained of, the investigation should not be allowed to be proceeded with, lest it would be only an abuse of the process of the Court.
4. We have carefully examined the submissions of both the learned counsel. After going through the impugned order and other connected papers, we feel that the High Court was not justified in quashing the investigation which is still on its way. Needless to emphasise that the further investigation in the offence is legally permissible as contemplated by Section 173(8) of Criminal Procedure Code. The learned counsel appearing for the State when asked represents that the investigation is not yet complete and the State would come to a definite conclusion as to the culpability of the appellant only on the completion of the investigation. As repeatedly pointed out by various decisions of this Court that the investigation into an offence is a statutory function of the police and the superintendence thereof is vested in the State Government and the court is not justified without any compelling and justifiable reason to interfere with the investigation.
5. The decision in R.K Srivastava case (1989) 4 SCC 59 relied upon by Mr Natarajan has no application to the facts of the present case. As we feel that any other observation, if made by this Court, may affect either of the parties at any stage, we do not propose to deal with this matter any further. However, we are of the view that the High Court was not justified in quashing the investigation for the reasons mentioned in its order.
6. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
Alert