- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Teeja Devi Alias Triza Devi v. State Of Rajasthan And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The complainant, a member of a Scheduled Tribe, alleged that the accused induced her to affix her thumb impression on a document purportedly creating a mortgage but in fact prepared an agreement for the sale of her land. The complaint was forwarded to the police, resulting in FIR No. 7 of 2012, Police Station Kalandri, District Sirohi, for offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The accused invoked Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Rajasthan High Court, seeking quashing of the FIR. Relying exclusively on a “factual report” submitted by the investigating officer—which suggested the complaint was a counter-blast to related civil litigation—the High Court allowed Criminal Misc. Petition No. 542 of 2012 and quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings. The complainant appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the High Court was justified in exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash a pending FIR at the investigation stage.
- Whether reliance solely on an investigating officer’s interim report, without a complete investigation, can form a lawful basis for quashing an FIR alleging cognisable offences.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- Section 482 CrPC should be sparingly used to quash an FIR; interference with police investigation is permissible only in the “rarest of rare” cases where the prosecution is manifestly malicious or vexatious.
- The allegations in the FIR prima facie disclose cognisable offences; hence investigation must proceed unhindered.
State of Rajasthan's Arguments
- Supported the appellant, citing paragraphs 15 and 16 of State of Karnataka v. Pastor P. Raju (2006) 6 SCC 728, reiterating that courts should not stifle legitimate investigation unless exceptional circumstances exist.
Accused Respondents' Arguments
- Contended that the High Court’s order was sustainable because the investigating officer’s report found the allegations unfounded and characterised the FIR as a counter-blast to pending civil proceedings for specific performance.
- Highlighted delay in lodging the complaint, asserting this created suspicion about its bona fides and justified quashing to prevent abuse of process.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| State of Karnataka v. Pastor P. Raju (2006) 6 SCC 728 | Court’s power under Section 482 CrPC to interfere with investigation should be exercised only in exceptional cases where the complaint is patently malicious or lacks any ingredient of a cognisable offence. | Relied upon to reaffirm that the High Court should not have quashed the FIR because the allegations prima facie disclosed cognisable offences and investigation was still incomplete. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court observed that:
- The High Court interfered at the investigation stage solely on the basis of a preliminary report from the investigating officer, without allowing the statutory process to run its course.
- Established jurisprudence mandates non-interference with police investigation unless a case is exceptionally rare involving manifest abuse; the present matter did not meet that threshold.
- Allegations in the FIR, if taken at face value, disclosed serious cognisable offences under the IPC and the SC/ST Act; determining their truth required a “thorough investigation,” which the High Court prematurely foreclosed.
- Questions about delay in lodging the complaint or the existence of parallel civil litigation are factual issues better addressed after completion of investigation and filing of a final report under Section 173 CrPC.
Accordingly, the Court concluded that the High Court’s order amounted to an unwarranted interference with the statutory powers of the police and was therefore unsustainable.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The Supreme Court set aside the Rajasthan High Court’s order in Criminal Misc. Petition No. 542 of 2012 and allowed the appeal, directing the police to complete the investigation expeditiously and the Magistrate to deal with the matter in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the quashed High Court order or the present judgment.
Implications: The decision reinforces the principle that High Courts should exercise their inherent powers to quash FIRs sparingly and only in extraordinary circumstances. It underscores that preliminary investigative opinions cannot substitute for a full investigation, thereby safeguarding the statutory mandate of the police and preserving the complainant’s right to have allegations duly investigated. No new precedent is set, but the ruling reaffirms existing jurisprudence on the limited scope of Section 482 CrPC interventions.
Shiva Kirti Singh, J.— Leave granted. Heard Mr H.D Thanvi, learned counsel for the appellant, Ms Aishwarya Bhati, learned counsel for the accused respondents and Mr Shiv Mangal Sharma for the State of Rajasthan.
2. The accused approached the High Court through an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for the sake of brevity “CrPC”) and sought quashing of FIR No. 7 of 2012, PS Kalandri, District Sirohi, registered for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
3. The High Court noticed the facts alleged in the complaint filed by the appellant in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi which showed that the complainant belonged to a Scheduled Tribe and allegedly she was cheated by the accused persons who fraudulently represented to her that her thumb impression was being taken for creating a mortgage deed but later she came to know that they had dishonestly prepared an agreement for sale of her lands. After noticing that the complaint of the appellant was forwarded to the police for instituting FIR and investigation and that the accused were seeking quashing of the FIR, the High Court took into consideration a report described as a factual report submitted by the investigating officer and by placing reliance solely upon such report obtained from the IO, the High Court passed the order Criminal Misc. Petition No. 542 of 2012 under appeal and quashed the FIR and all related proceedings.
4. In view of the nature of the proposed order this Court has purposely avoided to go into the factual details and controversy between the parties. This would prevent prejudice to the appellant as well as to the accused persons in future because after hearing the parties we are of the firm view that the order Criminal Misc. Petition No. 542 of 2012 of the High Court is not in accordance with law and in the facts of the case no interference should have been made with the investigation by the police by quashing the FIR.
5. It has been rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that ordinarily power under Section 482 CrPC should not be used to quash an FIR because that amounts to interfering with the statutory power of the police to investigate a cognizable offence in accordance with the provisions of CrPC. As per law settled by a catena of judgments, if the allegations made in the FIR prima facie disclose a cognizable offence, interference with the investigation is not proper and it can be done only in the rarest of rare cases where the court is satisfied that the prosecution is malicious and vexatious.
6. In support of the aforesaid proposition the learned counsel for the State of Rajasthan placed reliance upon paras 15 and 16 of the judgment of this Court in State of Karnataka v. Pastor P. Raju (2006) 6 SCC 728.
7. The proposition of law indicated above has been consistently followed in a large number of cases and the learned counsel for the accused fairly submitted that the impugned order Criminal Misc. Petition No. 542 of 2012 of the High Court can be sustained only in view of the factual report submitted by the investigating officer to the High Court. Since the report showed that after some investigation the allegations were found to be incorrect, the High Court accepted the view of the investigating officer and held that the FIR appears to be only a counter-blast to the civil action initiated by the accused against the complainant for specific performance of an agreement for sale.
8. The learned counsel for the accused also pointed out that there was some delay in lodging the complaint and that created further suspicion in the mind of the High Court, leading to an inference recorded in the order that permitting the investigation to continue is unwarranted as the same would amount to gross abuse of the process of court.
9. We have no hesitation in holding that in the facts of the case, the High Court was not justified in interfering with the police investigation and quashing the FIR. This is not at all a rare case. Without a thorough investigation, it is not possible or proper to hold whether the allegations made by the complainant are true or not. Hence the investigation should have been allowed to continue so that on filing of the report under Section 173 CrPC the affected party could pursue its remedy against the report in accordance with law. Keeping in view the fact that the criminal case was at the stage of investigation by the police the High Court was not justified in holding that the investigation of the impugned FIR is totally unwarranted and that the same would amount to gross abuse of the process of the court.
10. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order Criminal Misc. Petition No. 542 of 2012 of the High Court under appeal is set aside. The appeal stands allowed. We make it clear that the police will proceed to complete the investigation fairly with some expedition and submit the required report to the learned Magistrate who shall act in accordance with law without being influenced against either of the parties on account of the impugned order of the High Court or this order.
Alert