Dinesh Chandubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, (SC)
: Law Finder Doc Id # 814120
2016(12) Scale 490
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Before:- Mr. Dipak Misra and Mr. Amitava Roy, JJ.
Criminal Appeal No(S). 1164 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8105 of 2016) with Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8467 of 2016 with Criminal Appeal No(S). 1165-1168 OF 2016 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos. 8149-8152 of 2016) with Criminal Appeal No(S). 1169 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 8967 of 2016). D/d.
Dinesh Chandubhai Patel - Appellant
State of Gujarat And Anr. - Respondents
For the Appearing Parties :- Mr. Yalin Oza, Senior Advocate Mr. P.B. Majmudar, Senior Advocate Mr. Purvish Jitendra Malkan Mr. Apuirva Kapadiya, Mr. Yashashvi Virendra, and Ms. D. Malkan, Advocate. Mr. Harin Raval, Senior Advocate Mr. A. Munshi, Mr. Pradhuman Gohil, Mr. Vikash Singh, Ms. Taruna Singh Gohil, Ms. J.S. Jadeja, Ms. Himanshu Choubey, Ms. Divya Anand, Mr. Anado Mukherji, Mr. Mohit Paul, Ms. Diksha Jhingan, Ms. Hemkantika Wahi, Ms. Jesal Wahi, Mr. Aagam Kaur, Mr. Shyam Divan, Senior Advocate Mr. Mahesh Agrawal, Mr. Abhinav Agrawal, and Mr. E.C. Agrawal, Advocates.
Constitution of India, 1950 Article 134 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 482 Refusal to quash investigation - Sustainability - After report filed petition filed for quashing investigation - High Court not adverted to merit of case within guideline laid down by Apex Court in State of Haryana & Ors v. Bhajan Lal and Ors - Order set aside - Matter remitted to decide afresh - 1992 Supp(1)SCC 335, Relied on.
[Paras 3 and 4]
Cases Referred :
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.
In Crl. A. No. 1164 OF 2016@ SLP (Crl.) No. 8105 of 2016 and In Crl. A. Nos. 1165-1168 OF 2016@ SLP(Crl.) Nos. 8149-8152 of 2016
2. In these appeals, by special leave, the order dated 28.09.2016 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Criminal Application Nos. 4357 and 4951 of 2016 respectively preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "the Cr.P.C.") for quashing of investigation is called in question. We do not intend to state anything with regard to the history of litigation. Suffice it to state, certain directions were issued under Article 226 of the Constitution in a petition and when the said was challenged in S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 4703 of 2016 this Court on 29.06.2016 after reproducing few paragraphs from the order of the High Court had directed as follows:-
"Regard being had to the narrow compass in which the grievance rests, we clarify that the aforesaid paragraphs are not to be treated as directions under Article 226 of the Constitution and if any F.I.R. is registered, the investigating agency shall proceed in accordance with law. If the petitioner is grieved with the same, he may approach the appropriate court which shall deal with the matter in accordance with law. Needless to say, when the matter would be dealt with by the appropriate court, it will be done independently without being influenced by any of the observation made in the impugned order. We may hasten to clarify that except our clarificatory observation, nothing shall be construed as an expression on merits of the case."
3. As the factual matrix would show, after the report was filed, a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the investigation into case ICR No. 90 of 2016 was registered with Khatodara Police Station under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "the IP") and Sections 3(1)(v) and 3(1)(iv) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989. On a perusal of the order passed by the High Court, it is manifest that it did not really advert to the merits of the case within the guidelines laid down by this Court in State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.
4. In view of the aforesaid, the order passed by the High Court is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court to decide the lis within the parameters of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Liberty is granted to the appellants to move an application for stay of investigation, if so advised. Needless to say the High Court shall address to the prayer made in the interim application without being influenced by any of the orders passed by this Court including the present order. If an application of stay is moved, the High Court is requested to dispose of the same within ten days.
5. The High Court is requested to dispose of the petitions pending before it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. within four months hence.
6. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
In Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8467 of 2016.
7. In view of the judgment passed in Crl. A. Nos. 1164 and 1165-1168 of 2016, nothing remains to be adjudicated in this special leave petition and it is disposed of accordingly.
In Crl. A. No. 1169 OF 2016 @ SLP(Crl.) No. 8967 of 2016.
8. Leave granted.
9. The present appeal by special leave calls in question the legal propriety of the order dated 4th October, 2016 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Crl. Misc. Application No. 16731 of 2016 preferred under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashment of the FIR. Needless to say the orders and directions passed in Crl. A. No. 1164 of 2016 shall apply in full force to the present case also.
10. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. The Impugned Order is set aside and the High Court is requested to decide the matter afresh in view of the law laid down in Bhajan Lal's case (supra). The High Court Shall decide the main petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
Previous Hitlist Next