Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against the judgment of the Delhi High Court quashing the FIR, charge-sheet, and related proceedings against Arvind Khanna under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act. The respondent, a former MLA of Punjab, had received Rs. 9,04,84,770 from eight foreign entities between 2002 and 2006 without prior permission from the Central Government, allegedly in violation of FCRA 1976. The CBI registered an FIR under Section 23(1) read with Section 4(1) of FCRA 1976. The trial court initially took cognizance under FCRA 2010, but the revisional court corrected this to FCRA 1976. The High Court quashed the proceedings, relying on statements that the funds were gifts from the respondent's father and on Income Tax orders treating them as gifts. The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC by adjudicating disputed facts, which should be tested at trial. It also noted that compounding under Section 41 of FCRA 2010 is not available for offences under FCRA 1976. The Court set aside the High Court's order and restored the proceedings, directing the trial court to proceed in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 482 - Quashing of FIR - Disputed Facts - High Court cannot quash criminal proceedings by recording findings on disputed facts; defence of accused must be tested during trial (Paras 19-20).
B) Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976 - Sections 23, 4 - Offence - Cognizance - Revisional Court correctly held that cognizance should be deemed under FCRA 1976, not FCRA 2010, as offence was committed when FCRA 1976 was in force (Paras 10, 16).
C) Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 - Section 41 - Compounding - Benefit of compounding under FCRA 2010 is not available for offences committed under FCRA 1976 (Para 14).
D) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 482 - Quashing - Maintainability - Petition under Section 482 CrPC is not maintainable when allegations prima facie disclose commission of offence (Para 14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the FIR and charge-sheet under Section 482 CrPC on the basis of disputed facts and without considering that the offence was under FCRA 1976, not compoundable under FCRA 2010
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order dated 30.11.2015, and restored the proceedings to the trial court for continuation in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Section 482 CrPC cannot be used for adjudicating disputed facts
- defence to be tested at trial
- compounding under Section 41 FCRA 2010 not applicable to offences under FCRA 1976
Case Details
2019 LawText (SC) (10) 73
Criminal Appeal No. 1572 of 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 1420 of 2017)
Rana Mukherjee (for appellant), Mahesh Jethmalani (for respondent)
Central Bureau of Investigation
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against High Court order quashing FIR and charge-sheet under FCRA
Remedy Sought
CBI sought setting aside of High Court order quashing FIR, charge-sheet, and proceedings
Filing Reason
High Court quashed criminal proceedings on disputed facts under Section 482 CrPC
Previous Decisions
Trial court took cognizance under FCRA 2010; revisional court substituted it to FCRA 1976; High Court quashed FIR and proceedings
Issues
Whether the High Court could quash FIR and charge-sheet under Section 482 CrPC by adjudicating disputed facts
Whether the offence under FCRA 1976 can be compounded under Section 41 of FCRA 2010
Submissions/Arguments
CBI argued that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC by deciding disputed facts; the defence should be tested at trial; compounding under FCRA 2010 is not available for offences under FCRA 1976.
Respondent argued that the funds were gifts from his father, an Indian passport holder; Income Tax authorities accepted them as gifts; the offence is compoundable under FCRA 2010.
Ratio Decidendi
In a petition under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court cannot quash criminal proceedings by recording findings on disputed facts; the defence of the accused must be tested during trial. The benefit of compounding under Section 41 of FCRA 2010 is not available for offences committed under FCRA 1976.
Judgment Excerpts
In a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court has recorded findings on several disputed facts and allowed the petition. Defence of the accused is to be tested after appreciating the evidence during trial.
The very fact that the High Court, in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has recorded findings on disputed facts and quashed the proceedings, is not sustainable.
Procedural History
FIR registered on 02.04.2007 under FCRA 1976; charge-sheet filed on 13.12.2010; trial court took cognizance under FCRA 2010 on 05.07.2011; CBI filed revision; revisional court on 20.08.2011 substituted cognizance to FCRA 1976; respondent filed quash petitions under Section 482 CrPC; High Court quashed FIR and proceedings on 30.11.2015; CBI appealed to Supreme Court.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): Section 482
- Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976 (FCRA 1976): Section 23, Section 4, Section 28
- Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 (FCRA 2010): Section 35, Section 3, Section 41, Section 4
- Income Tax Act, 1961: Section 147
