2020 (11) TMI 994 - SC - Indian Laws

Refusal of the Allahabad High Court to quash the FIR - Power of police to investigate an issue the substratum of which is sub judice before this Court in the civil appeals - long delay in lodging the complaint - purchase of 3 vehicles by respondent as against his claim to have purchased 7 vehicles - HELD THAT - The question whether the 3rd Respondent-complainant purchased 3 vehicles as revealed by the VAHAN Portal of the Government or 7 vehicles as claimed by him in his complaint is a question of fact which has to be established only in the course of investigation/trial. In a petition for quashing the FIR the Court cannot go into disputed questions of fact. Delay in lodging complaint - HELD THAT - The mere delay on the part of the 3rd Respondent-complainant in lodging the complaint cannot by itself be a ground to quash the FIR. The law is too well settled on this aspect to warrant any reference to precedents. Therefore the second ground on which the Petitioner seeks to quash the FIR cannot be countenanced. Effect of pendency of the Civil Appeals arising out of the order of the NGT and the interim order passed by this Court in the Civil Appeals for quashing of FIR - HELD THAT -The applicants before the NGT did not seek any relief for themselves as purchasers of vehicles. The reliefs sought by the applicants before the NGT were broad and general. This is why the NGT by its final order dated 07.03.2019 directed only the CPCB to consider the initiation of prosecution in the light of the applicable statutory regime while ordering the manufacturers to deposit Rs. 500 crores as compensation for the damage caused to the environment - the order of the NGT passed on the applications filed by certain individuals not claiming as purchasers of vehicles cannot be taken as an impediment for an individual who purchased cars from the manufacturers to lodge a complaint if he has actually suffered on account of any representation made by the manufacturers. The proceedings before the NGT were not intended to address issues relating to individuals such as (i) whether any emissions manipulation software called in common parlance as defeat devices were installed in the vehicles purchased by certain individuals; and (ii) whether any representation was made to the purchasers of the cars in which such devices had been installed about the emission efficiency level of the cars - we are unable to agree with the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner that the substratum of the police complaint is something that is already the subject matter of adjudication before this Court in the appeals arising out of the order of the NGT. As a matter of fact the High Court has been fair to the Petitioner by granting protection against arrest till the filing of the report Under Section 173(2) of the Code. We do not think that the Petitioner can ask for anything more. The SLP dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of the FIR.
2. Delay in lodging the complaint.
3. Discrepancy in the number of vehicles purchased.
4. Pendency of civil appeals before the Supreme Court.
5. Allegations of cheat devices in vehicles.
6. Jurisdiction of police investigation versus NGT proceedings.

Detailed Analysis:

Quashing of the FIR:
The petitioner sought to quash the FIR registered against them for offenses under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. The Supreme Court reiterated that courts should not thwart any investigation unless no cognizable offense is disclosed. The court emphasized that quashing should be an exception and used sparingly, reinforcing the principle from King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmed and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal.

Delay in Lodging the Complaint:
The petitioner argued that the complaint was lodged after a significant delay of over 2.5 years. The court held that mere delay in lodging a complaint is not sufficient ground to quash an FIR. This principle is well-settled and does not warrant further precedents.

Discrepancy in the Number of Vehicles Purchased:
The petitioner contended that the complainant purchased only 3 vehicles, as per the VAHAN Portal, contrary to his claim of 7 vehicles. The court stated that such factual disputes must be established during investigation/trial and cannot be resolved in a petition to quash the FIR.

Pendency of Civil Appeals Before the Supreme Court:
The petitioner argued that the police cannot investigate issues that are sub judice before the Supreme Court in civil appeals arising from NGT orders. The court clarified that the NGT proceedings focused on environmental damage and did not address individual grievances of vehicle purchasers. Thus, the pendency of civil appeals does not preclude individuals from lodging complaints if they suffered due to representations made by the manufacturers.

Allegations of Cheat Devices in Vehicles:
The complaint alleged that the vehicles sold by the petitioner contained cheat devices, contrary to the manufacturer's representations. The court noted that the question of whether such devices were installed and whether representations were made are factual matters to be investigated. The court referred to global developments, including the diesel-gate scandal, to highlight the context of the allegations.

Jurisdiction of Police Investigation Versus NGT Proceedings:
The court distinguished between the broad environmental concerns addressed by the NGT and the specific grievances of individual vehicle purchasers. The interim order by the Supreme Court in civil appeals related to NGT directions does not deter individuals from seeking police investigation for their specific grievances.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition, upholding the High Court's decision to protect the petitioner's officers from arrest but allowing the investigation to proceed. The court emphasized that the police investigation and NGT proceedings operate in different spheres, and the petitioner's contentions did not warrant quashing the FIR.

← Previous Next →