Case Note & Summary
The present proceedings involved a criminal writ petition and criminal application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashing of FIR No. 116 of 2018 registered at Muktainagar Police Station for offences under Sections 379, 380, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469, 471, 474, 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners were social activists, including a prominent anti-corruption campaigner who had previously filed a Public Interest Litigation against Respondent No. 3, a former Minister in the Government of Maharashtra, alleging disproportionate assets. In the PIL, photocopies of two demand drafts—one for Rs. 10,00,000 and another for Rs. 9,50,00,000—purportedly issued by Chopda Urban Cooperative Bank in favour of Respondent No. 3 were annexed. Respondent No. 3 lodged a complaint alleging that these demand drafts were forged and that the petitioners had stolen them. He stated that he had received information about the drafts and upon inquiry, the bank had denied issuing them, and further, the drafts were from a 2008 series while dated 2010. The bank’s license had been cancelled by the Reserve Bank of India in 2011. After making a preliminary inquiry to the Superintendent of Police, Respondent No. 3 filed a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Muktainagar, under Section 156(3) CrPC, and on directions, the FIR came to be registered. The petitioners contended that they had only obtained photocopies of the demand drafts from aggrieved depositors of the bank and had never had possession of the originals. They claimed that the FIR was a mala fide counterblast to the PIL and an act of vengeance. They argued that none of the essential ingredients of the alleged offences were attracted against them and the entire proceeding was an abuse of process. The State and the Investigating Officer maintained that the investigation was at a preliminary stage and had revealed discrepancies such as the drafts being of an older series, signature mismatches, and lack of authorization from the bank. The bank records were seized, and further investigation was required to unearth the truth. The High Court, after hearing all parties, observed that at the stage of quashing an FIR, the court has to see whether the allegations, if taken at face value, disclose any offence. The Court noted that the investigation had not been completed and that the allegations of forgery and theft of valuable documents could not be thrown out at the threshold merely because the petitioners claimed mala fides. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition and the application, declining to quash the FIR and permitting the investigation to proceed in accordance with law. The Court left all contentions of the parties open to be raised at an appropriate stage.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of FIR - Inherent Powers - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 482 - The High Court, in exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, must consider whether the allegations in the FIR, taken at face value, constitute any offence; if so, the FIR should not be quashed at the threshold, and investigation must be permitted to proceed. Held that at the stage of investigation, the court should be slow to quash an FIR when the allegations make out a prima facie case. (Paras 1-9) B) Criminal Law - Forgery and Fabrication of Documents - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 - Where disputed demand drafts were allegedly issued in 2010 but were from a series of 2008, and the bank’s license had been cancelled, the authenticity of the documents is a matter for investigation, and the FIR alleging theft and forgery warrants inquiry. Investigation officer had seized records and the anomalies required further probe. (Paras 8-9) C) Procedural Law - Counterblast FIR - Malice - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The mere fact that an FIR may have been filed as a counterblast to a PIL or out of malice does not automatically vitiate the proceedings if the allegations independently disclose commission of an offence; the investigation must be allowed to determine the truth. The Court noted the petitioners’ contention of mala fides but declined to quash on that ground alone. (Paras 6-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the FIR No. 116 of 2018 should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution. Whether the FIR is mala fide and bereft of prima facie allegations.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal writ petition and criminal application, declining to quash FIR No. 116/2018. The Court held that at the investigation stage it would not be proper to quash the FIR as the allegations required inquiry into the authenticity of the demand drafts. The investigation was left to proceed in accordance with law.
Law Points
- scope of Section 482 CrPC
- quashing of FIR at investigation stage
- prima facie case
- exception for mala fide
- authenticity of demand drafts
- investigation of forgery
