Justice Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice Vikram Nath and Justice B V Nagarathna of the Supreme Court observed that as per Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, High Court cannot conduct a mini-trial. The court while allowing the appeal had set aside the decision of Single Judge, Telangana High Court and directed the appellant to resume the investigation based on the FIR.The first respondent is Income Tax Commissioner and her husband is the second respondent who is an MLA as well as a Minister in Andhra Pradesh State Government. Due to alleged disproportionate assets in the know sources of income of first respondents and second respondent is alleged to have abetted the offence, an FIR was lodged against the same.
A writ petition was filed by respondents as per Article 226 before the Single Judge, High Court and the court while allowing the writ petition had set aside the FIR as well as the proceedings that arose from the FIR.
In a criminal appeal that was filed before the top court, the court noted and remarked:
“41 The judgment of a two Judge Bench of this Court in Gunmala Sales (P) Ltd. v. Anu Mehta61 makes it abundantly clear that the High Court does not conduct a mini-trial or a roving inquiry while exercising its powers under Section 482 of the CrPC. Justice Ranjana P Desai held:
“34.4. No restriction can be placed on the High Court’s powers under Section 482 of the Code. The High Court always uses and must use this power sparingly and with great circumspection to prevent inter alia the abuse of the process of the court. There are no fixed formulae to be followed by the High Court in this regard and the exercise of this power depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The High Court at that stage does not conduct a mini trial or roving inquiry, but nothing prevents it from taking unimpeachable evidence or totally acceptable circumstances into account which may lead it to conclude that no trial is necessary qua a particular Director.”
This principle also applies squarely to the exercise of powers by a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution while considering a writ petition for quashing an FIR. Further, in numerous judgments of this Court it has been held that a court cannot conduct a mini-trial at the stage of framing of charges62. Hence, doing so at the stage of considering a petition for quashing an FIR under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution is obviously also impermissible. Therefore, we disapprove of the reasoning provided by the Telangana High Court in its impugned judgment dated 11 February 2020 for quashing the FIR.”
LEGALFLAME 