2018 (12) TMI 1871 - HC - Indian Laws

Complicity of the petitioners in the commission of the alleged crime - bundle of lies and product of malice - HELD THAT - Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances it is directed that investigation of the case shall go on but the petitioners shall not be arrested till the submission of police report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. subject to their extending full cooperation during investigation. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashing of FIR filed after a delay of six years with false allegations.
2. Allegations of no credible evidence against the petitioners.
3. Direction for investigation to proceed without arrest of petitioners.

Analysis:
The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking to quash an FIR dated 7.11.2017, registered under various sections of the IPC and the Company Act. The petitioners argued that the FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of six years and contained false allegations against them as purchasers of a Sugar Mill. They contended that no credible evidence supported the allegations and requested the FIR to be quashed. On the other hand, the learned A.G.A. argued that the allegations in the FIR disclosed a cognizable offense and opposed the quashing of the FIR based on the submissions made by the petitioners.

Upon hearing both parties and examining the contents of the FIR, the court declined to quash the FIR. However, considering the specific facts and circumstances of the case, the court directed that the investigation should continue, but the petitioners should not be arrested until the police submit a report under section 173(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. This directive was subject to the petitioners' full cooperation during the investigation process. The court disposed of the petition with this direction, effectively allowing the investigation to proceed without the immediate arrest of the petitioners.

Therefore, the court's decision balanced the interests of both parties by allowing the investigation to continue while safeguarding the petitioners from immediate arrest, provided they cooperated with the authorities during the investigation. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering the specific circumstances of each case when determining the appropriate course of action regarding the quashing of FIRs and the conduct of investigations.