High Court Ought Not To Have Quashed FIR When It Disclosed The Commission Of Offence: Supreme Court Restores Cheating Case
|The Appeal before the Supreme Court was filed against the judgment quashing an FIR in a criminal case registered under Sections 420, 468, 465 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The Supreme Court set aside a judgment quashing an FIR in a criminal case and held that, as the FIR disclosed the commission of an offence, the High Court ought not to have quashed it solely on the ground that the complainant sought to prosecute the Adhyaksha of the Grama Panchayat primarily because of his position.
The Appeal before the Apex Court was filed against the judgment quashing an FIR in a criminal case registered under Sections 420, 468, 465 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar said, “Once the FIR is registered, the allegations made therein must be duly considered. Respondent no. 1, G.S. Suresh, is required to address these allegations during the course of the investigation. Therefore, as the FIR discloses the commission of an offence, the High Court ought not to have quashed it solely on the aforementioned ground.
AOR Aljo K. Joseph represented the Appellant while Senior Advocate Kiran Suri represented the Respondent.
Reasoning
Considering the allegations made and the reasoning given by the High Court, the Bench stated that the High Court could not have prematurely scuttled the entire investigation on the ground that the complainant/appellant, D.B. Ravikumar, sought to prosecute the first Respondent, G.S. Suresh, primarily because he held the position of Adhyaksha of the Grama Panchayat.
“This reasoning is untenable, particularly when the High Court itself acknowledged the presence of certain irregularities”, it said while also noting that the FIR disclosed the commission of an offence and the High Court ought not to have quashed it.
Thus, setting aside the impugned judgment, the Bench allowed the appeal.
Cause Title: D.B. Ravikumar v. G.S. Suresh & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 514)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Aljo K. Joseph, Advocates Sheikh Mohsin, Vinay Kumar Puvvala, N. Leela Vara Prasad, Siddharth Singh
Respondent: Senior Advocate Kiran Suri, Advocates Sharanagouda Patil, Supreeta Patil, Yash, AOR M/s. S-legal Associates, AOR V.N. Raghupathy, Advocates Raghavenda M. Kulkarni, Mythili S., M. Bangaraswamy, Venkata Raghu Mannepalli, Md. Apzal Ansari, Shiv Kumar, Vaishnavi, Prakash Jadhav