Telangana High Court
Srb Housing Developers Private Limited vs State Of Telangana on 27 September, 2022
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.2066, 2191 & 4243 OF 2020
AND 8561 OF 2018
COMMON ORDER:
Criminal Petition Nos.2066, 2191 and 4243 of 2020 are filed by accused Nos.2, 3 & 5, 7 and 1 respectively, seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.46 of 2020 of the Central Crime Station Police Station, Hyderabad City Commissionerate, while Criminal Petition No.8561 of 2018 is filed by accused No.3 in Cr.No.46 of 2020 seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.14 of 2018 of the very same Police Station, wherein he arraigned as accused No.1.
2. The petitioners in Crl.P. Nos.2066, 2191 and 4243 of 2020 are arraigned as accused Nos.2, 3, 5, 7 and 1 in Crime No.46 of 2020. Accused No.3 in the said crime is also arraigned as accused No.1 in Crime No.14 of 2018 of the very same police station. The de facto complainant in both the crimes is one and the same. Since the allegations levelled in the aforesaid crimes and the parties are one and the same, all these criminal petitions are being disposed of by way of a common order.
2
KL,J Crl.P. Nos.2066 of 2020 & batch
3. Heard Mr. Sudarshan Malugari, learned counsel for the petitioners in Crl.P. No.2066 of 2020, Mr. B. Venkateshwar Rao, learned Counsel representing Mr. M.V. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P. No.8561 of 2018, Sri B. Shashidhar, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P. No.2191 of 2020 and Mr. S. Ashok Anand Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P. No.4243 of 2020, and Mr. T. Bala Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2 in all the petitions and also learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.
4. The allegations levelled against the accused in Crime No.46 of 2020 are as follows:
i) The de facto complainant, a Non-Resident Indian, is a Specialized Cardiologist working in United States of America.
ii) The de facto complainant and accused Nos.3 to 6 are known to each other ever since 1997. The de facto complainant was searching for land to establish a hospital. Taking advantage of the same, accused Nos.3 to 6 approached him and offered the land in Survey No.114 of Thondapally Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District for sale.3
KL,J Crl.P. Nos.2066 of 2020 & batch
iii) Accused Nos.3 to 6 informed the de facto complainant that the said land is in the name of accused No.2 Company and they are its Directors. The de facto complainant and his wife and the Directors of accused No.2 Company became family friends and the spouses of accused Nos.3 and 4 i.e., accused Nos.5 and 6 used to convince the de facto complainant and his wife that sale transactions would be lucky for him.
iv) Believing the words of accused Nos.3 to 6, the de facto complainant had purchased plot No.57, admeasuring 500 square yards, Plot No.407, admeasuring 500 square yards and Plot No.408, admeasuring 900 square yards, making a total extent of 1900 square yards in Survey No.114 of the Thondapally Village vide document bearing No.3455 of 2002, dated 31.08.2002 at Sub- Registrar Office, Shamshabad.
v) The de facto complainant had also purchased adjoining land bearing plot Nos.409 and 410, admeasuring 1450 square yards vide registered sale deed bearing document No.3456 of 2002, dated 31.08.2002. Thus, in total, the de facto complainant had purchased 4 KL,J Crl.P. Nos.2066 of 2020 & batch the total extent of 3350 square yards covered by the aforesaid two documents.
vi) Since the de facto complainant was busy in his profession, he had to go USA, and accused Nos.3 to 6 had promised him that they would take care of the aforesaid land.
vii) While the things stood thus, accused Nos.3 to 6 started forcing the de facto complainant to buy more land in the adjoining plots, but he was not interested.
viii) While so, accused No.1 contacted the de facto complainant and offered a commercial building for sale under the provisions of SARFAESI Act and during the said purchase, accused No.1 got close acquaintance and became family friend. When the de facto complainant was in USA, the daughter of accused No.1 used to stay with him and his family.
ix) While the things stood thus, the de facto complainant was shocked to find that accused No.3 had cancelled the aforesaid two sale deeds vide Cancellation Deed bearing document Nos.4357 of 2005 and 4352 of 2005, dated 28.04.2005 unilaterally on the ground of 'non-payment of the installments' even though he had 5 KL,J Crl.P. Nos.2066 of 2020 & batch paid the entire sale consideration and obtained possession of the aforesaid land.
x) After knowing the aforesaid cheating, the de facto complainant requested accused No.1 to help him to file case against accused Nos.3 to 6. Initially, accused No.1 agreed to initiate cases against accused Nos.3 to 6, but later started dragging the matter on one pretext or the other.
xi) Though accused No.1 informed the de facto complainant that she would sort out the issues between him and accused Nos.2 to 6 and the aforesaid land would be re-registered in his name, but she failed to do so.
xii) Subsequently, accused No.1 approached the de facto complainant for sale of flat and the de facto complainant had purchased the same. Later, accused No.1 offered land in the aforesaid Village and the de facto complainant had agreed to buy the same. Accused No.1 informed that the land for sale belongs to accused No.7 as he is Agreement of Sale - cum - General Power of Attorney Holder with possession vide document bearing No.7893 of 2008.
6
KL,J Crl.P. Nos.2066 of 2020 & batch
xiii) Though the de facto complainant agreed to buy the same initially, but when he came to know that the Vendor of accused No.7 is accused No.3, the de facto complainant had refused to purchase the same. However, accused No.1 convinced him and took responsibility on her that she would be responsible for any problem arises and advised him to deposit all the amounts into her account. Believing her, he had deposited the sale consideration of Rs.1,70,00,000/-. After receipt of the said amount, the land was registered in favour of the de facto complainant vide document bearing No.1166 of 2009, dated 20.04.2009 admeasuring 4000 square yards covered under Survey Nos.100/2/A, 100/2/B, 102, 103, 104/A, 104/B, 105/A, 105/B, 117/E, 117/F on Plot Nos.546, 547 and 548, situated at Thondapally Village of Shamshabad Mandal.
xiv) Thereafter, the accused approached the de facto complainant and demanded him the money for mutation of his name and for raising boundary walls, gate and room over the said land. Accused No.1 got the de facto complainant introduced to accused No.8, Sarpanch of that Village and made him to pay an 7 KL,J Crl.P. Nos.2066 of 2020 & batch amount of Rs.15.00 lakhs in the form of cash and through account transfer. The said Sarpanch, accused No.8, had issued construction permission in the year 2011.
xv) Taking advantage of the trust, accused No.1 took the original documents bearing Nos.3455 of 2002 and 3456 of 2002 from the de facto complainant assuring him that accused No.3 would re-register the sale deeds in his favour. In the year 2014, the de facto complainant was utterly shocked to know that the Government had raised a claim over the property vide sale deed bearing No.1166 of 2009 and had also removed the boundary walls from the property and erected Sign Board as "Government Land".
xvi) After coming to know the same, the de facto complainant started calling the accused, but none of them responded. Finally, accused No.8 had informed him that the Government claimed the land wrongly and advised him to challenge the same before the Court. Believing him and on his advice, the de facto complainant filed W.P. No.38192 of 2014 and all the accused took the responsibility to see that the said case is disposed of very soon.
8
KL,J Crl.P. Nos.2066 of 2020 & batch xvii) The de facto complainant with the help of one Mr. Murthy had done private survey of the land in December, 2017 covered by sale deed bearing No.1166 of 2009. The said survey reveals that the entire land which was sold to the de facto complainant does not fall in the survey numbers mentioned in the said sale deed, but the same would fall in Survey No.118 Part. Thus, all the accused had successfully cheated the de facto complainant and accused No.1 was planted by accused Nos.3 to 6 to obtain more money from him in order to cheat him taking advantage that he is NRI and Senior Citizen. On questioning, accused No.1 admitted that she approached him only on the advice of accused Nos.3 to 6 only.
xviii) Immediately, the de facto complainant came to India in the year 2018 and met accused Nos.1 and 3 to 7 to lodge a complaint against them. They informed him that they would compensate the loss sustained by him, but they did not do so.
xix) Further, when the de facto complainant came down to India in the month of November, 2019 and was shocked to see that a new board was erected on the land covered under sale deed 9 KL,J Crl.P. Nos.2066 of 2020 & batch bearing No.1166 of 2009 as "land belongs to Freedom Fighters". Then, accused Nos.1 and 3 threatened him with dire consequences. Further, he requested accused No.1 to return the aforesaid original documents, but he refused to give the same and on the other hand he threatened him.
xx) Whenever the de facto complainant wanted to initiate legal action against accused Nos.3 to 8, accused No.1 with an intention to cheat him, had dragged the matter by assuring him that she would take the responsibility that accused Nos.2 to 6 would re- register the land purchased by him in the year 2002, but the de facto complainant was shocked to find that accused No.3 had sold the land covered under Plot No.409 vide document No.13397 of 2019 dated 05.09.2019. He was further shocked to find as to how accused Nos.2 to 6 had sold plot No.409 to so many persons vide document No.3600 of 2008 and 12558 of 2005 and to him.
xxi) With the aforesaid allegations, the de facto complainant requested the police to take necessary action against the accused.
5. After receipt of the said complaint, the police, CCS registered a case in Crime No.46 of 2020 for the offence under 10 KL,J Crl.P. Nos.2066 of 2020 & batch Section - 420 read with 34 of IPC against the accused including the petitioners.
6. While so, the de facto complainant narrating all the aforesaid incidents gave a complaint on 21.07.2017 to the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, with a request to take action against accused No.3 in Crime No.46 of 2020, Mr. K.V. Srinivas and Mr. S. Prabhakar, for cheating and fraud etc. The Commissioner in turn referred the said complaint to the Police, CCS, who registered the same as Crime No.14 of 2018 for the offences under Sections - 406, 420 and 506 read with 34 of IPC and took up for investigation.
7. Whereas, the allegations in Crime No.14 of 2018 are as follows:
i) In the year 1997, the petitioner in Crl.P.No.8561 of 2018, who is accused No.1 in Crime NO.14 of 2018, Mr. S. Ramesh Babu, selectively met the de facto complainant in a Hindu Temple in USA and represented that he is a big real-estate business person with good and well-connected sound business group and planning to construct Hospitals including cardiac in Hyderabad. Accused 11 KL,J Crl.P. Nos.2066 of 2020 & batch No.1 further stated that already several specialist doctors and hospitals are in their pool and shown their bio-data and list of hospitals in the form of booklet to make him belief, and thereby he wanted the specialized services of de facto complainant in Cardiology Area to their health activities in the aggressively developing medical field and grabbed the attention of the de facto complainant into their mischievous vicious plans. Then, accused No.1 took all the details of the status of the de facto complainant, his earnings and financial capacity.
ii) According to the plans of accused No.1, he invited the de facto complainant to India, and on their invitation and believing them and without any doubt for the noble cause, the de facto complainant came to India, where accused No.1 introduced other three people of his group viz., Mr. K.V. Srinivas Rao, Mr. S. Prabhakar and Mr. N. Subash as his partners for the said noble activity.
iii) After little acquaintance, Mr. Ramesh Babu and his team have induced the de facto complainant to make investments in some valuable properties for the purpose of Hospitals by showing 12 KL,J Crl.P. Nos.2066 of 2020 & batch some documents and introduced some people alleged to be claiming as owners of properties and simultaneously formed a firm in the name of 'Health Organization' to achieve the objects in the field of public health and kept him as Chairman of the firm for the purpose of serving needy in the medical lines and the same was registered.
iv) The de facto complainant did not suspect the mala fide intention of the aforesaid persons and he went on paying huge amounts in dollars running into several crores as per the requirements projected by them since 1998. But, mischievously, Mr. Ramesh Babu and his team purchased several highly valuable properties, such as highly prime lands in Begumpet, Madhapur, Raidurg and Shamshabad areas and other parts of Hyderabad etc., on their names with his money and from the amounts sent by him for the requirement of Health Organization.
v) Later, the de facto complainant came to know that Mr. Ramesh Babu and his group have created series of documents for title on Government properties and cheated him severally for their 13 KL,J Crl.P. Nos.2066 of 2020 & batch illegal real estate enrichment for which they have misused him and his funds.
vi) The de facto complainant had to travel to India several times from USA as per their choice and timings in the name of compliance and on the pretext of settling the agreements and documents entered by them with him to see him exhausted and not to pursue any more which costed him a lot losing his lucrative professional practice and as responsible doctor at USA apart from travelling, stay and miscellaneous expenses and underwent lot of mental agony and kept off from his family several times and several days.
vii) The above group of persons conspiring with each other and threatened the de facto complainant with dire consequences if he proceed with further to complaint to any Government Department to realize his money and property. Ultimately, he came to understand that Mr. Ramesh Babu and his team have misappropriated his hard earned funds and cheated him severally and played fraud on him and purchased properties fraudulently on their names.14
KL,J Crl.P. Nos.2066 of 2020 & batch
8. Mr. Sudarshan Malugari, learned counsel for the petitioners in Crl.P. No.2066 of 2020 and accused Nos.2, 3 and 5 in Crime No.46 of 2020, would submit that the petitioners herein were implicated in the aforesaid crimes so as to settle the scores. Initiation of criminal action by the de facto complainant is a third round of litigation suppressing the material facts and earlier round of litigations. The de facto complainant has been harassing the petitioners by misusing process of law and the prosecuting agencies. The allegations made in the complaint disclose civil in nature and does not attract the offences under IPC. Accused No.5 is nothing to do with any kind of transactions and she never involved in any of the issues. The allegations against her are for the first time that too after a lapse of 18 years. The only reason is that she happens to be the wife of accused No.3. There are writ petitions and civil suits are pending between the parties and he converted the civil disputes into criminal. With the said submissions, he sought to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in both the crimes.
15
KL,J Crl.P. Nos.2066 of 2020 & batch
9. Whereas, Mr. B. Shashidhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.2191 of 2020 and accused No.7 in Crime No.46 of 2020, would submit that there is no intimacy between the petitioner - accused No.7 and de facto complainant - accused No.2 in so far as the subject matter is concerned in crime No.46 of 2020. The same is evident from pleadings in O.S. NO.110 of 2009 pending on the file of I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad and in the complaint filed under Section - 200 of the Cr.P.C. vide C.C.No.1474 of 2013 pending on the file of XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, and also in Crime No.14 of 2018. He has implicated the petitioner with a mala fide intention. He had tried to convert civil proceedings into criminal one. O.S. No.110 of 2009 and C.C. No.1474 of 2013 were closed at the instance of respondent No.2 on his own. Therefore, registration of second crime is impermissible. There is abnormal delay in lodging the complaint.
10. Mr. S. Ashok Anand Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.P. No.4243 of 2020 and accused 16 KL,J Crl.P. Nos.2066 of 2020 & batch No.1 in Crime No.46 of 2020, would submit that there is inordinate delay of ten (10) years ten (10) months and nineteen (19) days in lodging the complaint and the contents of the complaint lack the ingredients of the offences levelled against the petitioner - accused No.1. Registration of the said crime is in violation of the procedure laid down under Cr.P.C. On the complaint lodged by respondent No.2, very same CCS, Police have registered a case in Crime No.14 of 2018 and, therefore, registration of second crime is impermissible.
11. Mr. B. Venkateshwar Rao, learned counsel representing Mr. M.V. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner - accused No.1 in Crl.P. No.8561 of 2018, would submit that the complaint dated 21.07.2017 refers to compromise dated 03.01.2017 and C.C. No.1474 of 2013, even then, police have registered the aforesaid crime. Respondent No.2 cannot convert civil disputes into a criminal one, that too after not pressing the case against the petitioner. There is no fresh cause of action and contents of the complaint lack the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner - accused No.1.
17
KL,J Crl.P. Nos.2066 of 2020 & batch
12. On the other hand, Mr. T. Balamohan Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that there are specific allegations made in the complaints against the petitioners and the role played by each of the accused in commission of offences. The same are factual aspects which have to be investigated into by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation and the same cannot be decided in a petition under Section - 482 of the Cr.P.C. Further, all the accused in collusion with eachother, conspired together and cheated the de facto complainant and played fraud on him. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the criminal petitions.
13. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation in both the crimes is in progress and there are specific allegations against the petitioners herein and the same have to be investigated into by the Investigating Officers and it t is not the stage to consider the same, that too in a petition filed under Section - 482 of the Cr.P.C. In view of the same, he sought to dismiss all the criminal petitions.
18
KL,J Crl.P. Nos.2066 of 2020 & batch
14. The aforestated submissions and perusal of record would reveal the following factual aspects in both the crimes and all the petitions.
i) Suit in O.S. No.110 of 2009 was filed by the de facto complainant against one Mr. Subash and 7 others seeking declaration, specific performance, recovery of money and injunction in relation to schedule A and B properties therein;
ii) Schedule 'A" property consists of 3/4th share in H.No.6- 3-1215, admeasuring 7000 square yards with constructions thereon, popularly known as Mukthashram, situated at Begumpet, Hyderabad, while Schedule 'B' property consists of agricultural land admeasuring Acs.5.50 guntas out of total extent of Acs.26.00 in Survey Nos.83 and 83/1, situated at Raidurg (Panmaktha), Serilingamapally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District;
iii) A registered firm, namely M/s. Health Organization was floated on 09.06.1998 with 5 partners viz., Mr. N. Subhash, Mr. K.V. Srinivas, Mr. S. Ramesh Babu, Mr. S. Prabhakar and Mr. Madhav on 03.08.1988, while Mr. N. Subash and Mr. K.V. Srinivas are Managing Partners.
19
KL,J Crl.P. Nos.2066 of 2020 & batch
iv) An MOU dated 10.06.1998 was entered into for the complainant to provide funds aggregating to 1.1 Million USD towards security to bank loan obtained by firm to source agricultural land of Acs.5.00 in Survey No.83 of Raidurg for construction of hospital;
v) The complainant opened 6 FCNR deposits aggregating to 1.2 million USD vide FDR No.31/232, 31/239, 31/240, 31/282, 31/306 and 31/307 on 22.12.1998, 29.12.1998, 12.02.1999 and 09.03.1999.
vi) The above deposits are towards security to the loan account bearing No.60 of 2004, 60 of 268 and 60 of 235, aggregating to sum of Rs.4.59 Crores.
vii) On questioning of diversion of funds an agreement of sale dated 24.12.1999 was executed by the defendants in the suit in respect of schedule 'A' property.
viii) Due to subsequent illegal acts and commissions of defendants therein, a suit in O.S.No.110 of 2013 was filed by the de facto complainant on 05.01.2013 against one Mr. Subash and 7 20 KL,J Crl.P. Nos.2066 of 2020 & batch others. In the said suit, an interim injunction was granted by the Court below on 06.01.2013.
ix) Subsequently, a private complaint under Section - 200 of the Cr.P.C. was filed against the aforesaid partners viz., Mr. N. Subhash, Mr. K.V. Srinivas, Mr. S. Ramesh Babu and Mr. S. Prabhakar for the offences under Sections - 420, 406 and 120B of IPC vide C.S. (SR) No.4584 of 2013 on 16.08.2013 and the learned XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad was pleased to take cognizance vide order dated 30.09.2013 against accused Nos.1 to 4 therein for the offences under Sections - 420,406 and 120B of IPC.
x) A MOU was entered into between Mr.Madhav T. Pally and Mr. N. Subash on 03.01.2017 agreeing various terms and conditions therein.
xi) A petition was filed under Order - XXIII, Rule 3 of the CPC by Mr. N. Subash and Mr. Madhav T. Pally for recording compromise in the aforesaid O.S. No.110 of 2009 and the same was allowed vide order dated 06.01.2017 recording compromise 21 KL,J Crl.P. Nos.2066 of 2020 & batch between the plaintiff and defendant No.1. Accordingly, the suit against defendant Nos.2 to 8 was dismissed as not pressed.
xii) Crl.P. No.621 of 2017 was filed by accused No.1 to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1474 of 2013 and the same was allowed vide order dated 01.03.2017 recording compromise. C.C. No.1474 of 2013 was dismissed for default against Mr. K.V. Srinivas, Mr. S. Ramesh Babu and Mr. S. Prabhakar vide order dated 18.10.2019.
xiii) A complaint dated 21.07.2017 was submitted to the Commissioner of Police against Mr. K.V. Srinivas, Mr. S. Ramesh Babu and Mr. S. Prabhakar for cheating. Accordingly, a memo was issued by the Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad in respect of jurisdiction relating to the alleged offences committed by the accused.
xiv) On 03.02.2018, Crime No.14 of 2018 was registered for the aforesaid offences. In the said complaint, Schedule 'A' and 'B' properties and other areas of Hyderabad were also referred. 22
KL,J Crl.P. Nos.2066 of 2020 & batch
xv) A complaint dated 06.02.2020 was submitted to CCS, Hyderabad against one S. Indira and 7 others alleging cheating in respect of the land at Thondapally village. The aforesaid crime No.46 of 2020 was registered on 10.03.2020 against the accused for the offence under Section - 420 of IPC.
15. Admittedly, investigation is pending in both the crimes. Investigating Officer has to consider the aforesaid factual aspects during the course of investigation and the same cannot be considered in a petition filed under Section - 482 of the Cr.P.C. The allegations in both the complaints are different and distinct. Properties are also different and cause of action. Even the aspects of jurisdiction and delay will be considered by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. The said principle was also held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
16. There are disputes between the de facto complainant and the accused in respect of the aforesaid immovable property. Prima facie, there are serious and specific allegations against the petitioners in the complaint filed by the de facto complainant with regard to the cheating etc., and even the role played by the 23 KL,J Crl.P. Nos.2066 of 2020 & batch petitioners at every stage is also specifically mentioned. The proceedings are at crime stage and the Investigating Officer has to investigate into the said specific allegations levelled against the petitioners. In exercise of power under Section - 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Court cannot examine the correctness of the allegations made in the complaint except in exceptionally rare cases where it is patently clear that the allegations are frivolous or do not disclose any offence. Thus, prima facie, at this stage, this Court cannot come to a conclusion that there are no allegations against the petitioners and that the proceedings against them are liable to be quashed.
17. In a matter like this, scuttling investigation at the threshold is not warranted as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra1, a Three-judge Bench of the Apex Court laid certain conclusions, for the purpose of exercising powers by High Courts under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C and also Article - 226 of the Constitution of India, which are as under: 1
. AIR 2021 SC 1918 24 KL,J Crl.P. Nos.2066 of 2020 & batch "....
iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the 'rarest of rare cases'. (The rarest of rare cases standard in its application for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
is not to be confused with the norm which has been formulated in the context of the death penalty, as explained previously by this Court);
v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint;
vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;
vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule;
viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities. The inherent power of the court is, however, recognised to secure the ends of justice or prevent the above of the process by Section 482 Cr.P.C.
ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping;
25
KL,J Crl.P. Nos.2066 of 2020 & batch
x) Save in exceptional cases where non-
interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;
xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice;
xii) The first information report is not an encyclopedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. During or after investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure;
xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the 26 KL,J Crl.P. Nos.2066 of 2020 & batch court to be cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court;
xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint; and
18. In Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited v. The State of Uttar Pradesh2, the Apex Court referring to the earlier judgments rendered by it has categorically held that the High Courts in exercise of its inherent powers under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C has to quash the proceedings in criminal cases in rarest of rare cases with extreme caution.
19. In view of the above discussion and authoritative pronouncements of law, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein at this stage. 2 . AIR 2021 SC 931 27 KL,J Crl.P. Nos.2066 of 2020 & batch IN THE RESULT, all the Criminal Petitions are dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the criminal petitions shall stand closed.
____________________ th 27 September, 2022 K. LAKSHMAN, J Mgr