State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. Versus Akhil Sharda & Ors

State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. Versus   Akhil Sharda & Ors

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.840 of 2022 

                                                                

State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.               ...Appellants 

Versus  

Akhil Sharda & Ors.                         ...Respondents

With 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.841 OF 2022

Sanjeet Jaiswal     …Appellant

Versus

State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. …Respondents

J U D G M E N T 

M. R. Shah, J.

1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned

judgment and order dated 06.03.2020 passed by the High

1

Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow

in a Case under Sections 482/378/407 No.2005 of 2019 by

which the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482

Cr.P.C. has quashed the criminal proceedings arising out of

FIR bearing Case Crime No.260 of 2018 lodged under Section

406, registered at PS – Husainganj, District – Lucknow, the

State of U.P. as well as the original informant have preferred

the present appeals.

2. The facts leading to the present appeals in a nutshell are

as under:

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as

per the cause title in Criminal Appeal No.840 of 2022 filed by

the   State   of   U.P.     That   the   respondent   no.4   herein   M/s.

United Breweries Limited is engaged in manufacture of sale of

beer which is regulated and governed by the Excise Act and

other relevant clause of the State.   Respondent No.5 – M/s

Beehive Alcoveb is the licenced Firm having F.L. 2B licence,

engaged in the business of beer etc. by purchasing the goods

from   the   company,   Respondent   No.5   ­   Sanjeet   Jaiwal   –

original  informant  of FIR  No.260 of  2018, Manager of  the

2

company – M/s Beehive Alcoweb.  On 07.09.2018 at 7.56 p.m.

respondent no.5 sent a demand order at 7.56 p.m. and on

11.09.2018 through e­mail for delivery of three trucks of beer

to   respondent   No.4   –   M/s   United   Breweries   Limited   and

transferred   a   total   sum   of   Rs.92,98,902/­   to   deliver   two

trucks in Lucknow and one in Varanasi.   The Respondent

no.4 directed its transporter SICAL Logistics Limited Company

to arrange a vehicle and deliver goods to Respondent no.5/the

informant.     That   in   furtherance   of   the   same,   M/s.   SICAL

Logistics   Limited   Company   contacted   another   transport

company,   who   in   turn,   hired   two   trucks   vide   truck

registration numbers UP­32HN/3209 and UP­32FN/8048 for

delivery   of   consignment   of   respondent   no.5/informant   to

Lucknow after obtaining transfer permit FL­36 from Excise

Department.  The trucks were enabled with GPS systems as

maintained by the Excise Department Track and Trace policy.

2.1 The consignment of beer was dispatched on 11.09.2018

through the aforesaid two trucks.   The GPS devices of both

the   trucks   lost   contact   with   GPS   tracking   agency   on

13.09.2018 after 11.41 pm.   On 13.09.2018 at about 16.40

3

hrs. when the transporter contacted through his mobile phone

to driver Mukesh on his mobile phone, he was informed that

the   vehicles   were   standing   near   Junabganj,   Lucknow   at

Chauhan Dhaba (outer area of Lucknow) due to “no entry”.  It

appears that thereafter neither the tracer could be contacted

nor the vehicles could be traced.  With no positive response

from the supplier, respondent no.1 and the goods not being

delivered though full payment was made and the goods being

missing   midway,   respondent   no.5   lodged   the   present   FIR

bearing Case Crime No.260 of 2018 for the offence under

Sections 406 & 420 IPC.   In the meantime, the Manager of

M/s SICAL Logistic also lodged a separate FIR bearing Case

Crime No.390 of 2018 under Sections  420 & 406 IPC PS

Badalpur, Gautam Budha Nagar against two truck drivers

and   one   unknown   person.     After   the   conclusion   of   the

investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the charge­sheet

against respondent no.5 in Case Crime No.26 of 2018 dated

10.02.2018 and thereafter the learned Magistrate passed the

summoning order dated 13.02.2019.  Even subsequently the

Investigating Officer PS Badalpur has also filed the chargesheet in the case arising out of Case Crime No.227 of 2019 PS

4

– Banthra, District Lucknow (Old No.390 of 2018).  Thereafter

goods   were   delivered   to   the   original   informant.   Also,

respondent   no.1   to   respondent   no.4   herein,   accused   in

Criminal Case No.5694 of 2019 (arising out of FIR No.260 of

2018) approached the High Court by way of an application

under Section 482 Cr.P.C. being Case Crime No.2005 of 2019

seeking the following main reliefs:

“(i) set aside the impugned summoning order

dated 13.02.2019 passed in Criminal Case No.

5694/2019, Case Crime No. 0260/2018, under

Section 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120­B I.P.C.,

Police Station­Husainganj, district Lucknow. 

(ii). set aside the impugned charge sheet dated

10.02.2019, filed by the Investigating Officer in

Case Crime No. 0260/2018, under Section 406,

420, 467, 468, 471, 120­B I.P.C., Police StationHusainganj, District­ Lucknow. 

(iii) set aside the entire proceedings of the Case

Crime No. 0260/2018, under Section 406, 420,

467,   468,   471,   120­B   I.P.C.,   Police   StationHusainganj, District­ Lucknow.” 

2.2 By the impugned judgment and order the High Court in

exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has quashed the

entire criminal proceedings including the charge­sheet and

the summoning order arising out of Criminal Case No.5694 of

5

2019   (arising   out   of   Case   Crime   No.260   of   2018   PS   –

Husainganj, District – Lucknow).

2.3 Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned

judgment and order passed by the High Court quashing the

criminal proceedings and the summoning order passed by the

learned Trial Court in Criminal Case No.5694 of 2019 (arising

out of Case Crime No.260 of 2018 PS – Husainganj, District –

Lucknow), the State as well as the original informant have

preferred the present appeals.

3. Ms.   Aishwarya   Bhati,   learned   ASG   has   appeared   on

behalf of the appellant ­ State of UP and Dr. Abhishek Manu

Singhvi, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of

the original informant.   Shri Ranjeet Kumar, learned Senior

Advocate and Shri Sidharth Dave, learned Senior Advocate

have appeared on behalf of the original accused.

4. Ms. Bhati, learned ASG and Dr. Singhvi, learned Senior

Advocate appearing on behalf of the original informant have

vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of

6

the case the High Court has committed a grave/serious error

in   quashing   the   entire   criminal   proceedings   in   exercise   of

powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

4.1 It is submitted on behalf of the State as well as the

original informant that while passing the impugned judgment

and order while quashing the criminal proceedings arising out

of Case Crime No.260 of 2018 the High Court has not properly

appreciated and/or considered the larger conspiracy.

4.2 It is submitted that the High Court has not appreciated

and/or considered  the  fact  that  both  the  FIRs being Case

Crime Nos.260 of 2018 and 227 of 2019 are interconnected

and cannot be separated.  It is submitted that the High Court

ought not to have set aside the criminal proceedings arising

out of one FIR being Case Crime No.260 of 2018.

4.3 It is submitted that the High Court has failed to note

and/or appreciate the allegations in the FIR being FIR No.260

of   2018   which   were   relating   to   disappearances   of   trucks

loaded   with   beer   from   highways   in   Uttar   Pradesh   which

7

involve allegations of forging data and uploading incorrect data

against the Respondent ­Accused.

4.4 It is further submitted that by passing the impugned

judgment   and   order   the   High   Court   has   curtailed   and

narrowed the scope of the investigation. 

4.5 It is submitted that even the High Court agrees that the

allegations are serious and require investigation.   However,

without a further prayer in that regard and at the instance of

the accused, the High Court has transferred the investigation

to CB­CID to investigate the FIR being FIR No.227 of 2019

lodged by the accused themselves.

4.6 It is further submitted that while passing the impugned

judgment and order and quashing the criminal proceedings

the High Court has not properly appreciated and considered

various aspects of the case and the complicity of the accused

have not been considered.  

8

4.7 It is submitted that two whole trucks loaded with beer

went missing and the beer bottles was not found.  There was

no recovery or seizure of the goods concerned. It had come

during investigation that there were other such instances of

disappearance   of   trucks   loaded   with   beer   bottles.     It   is

submitted   that   there   is   a   syndicate   operating   with   the

connivance of the accused persons. 

 4.8 It  is   submitted  that   the  manner   in  which   the  trucks

loaded with beer bottles went missing and the modus operandi

adopted, in such a serious matter but the High Court has

quashed the criminal proceedings; that the High Court has

exceeded its jurisdiction while exercising the powers under

Section 482 Cr.P.C.

4.9 It   is   submitted   that   while   quashing   the   criminal

proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

the High Court has conducted a mini trial which as such is

not permissible while exercising the powers under Section 482

Cr.P.C.

9

4.10 Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective

appellants have heavily relied upon the following decisions of

this   Court   in   support   of   their   above   submissions   and   the

prayer to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and

order.

(i) Odisha vs. Pratima Mohanty, 2021 SCC Online SC

1222 [paras 14, 15, 16, 18 & 22]

(ii) CBI vs. Thommandru, 2021 SCC Online SC 923

(iii) Rajeev Kourav vs. Baisahab, (2020) 3 SCC 317

(iv) Neeharika   Infrastructure   vs.   Maharashtra,   2021

SCC Online SC 315

(v) Rajiv Thapar vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC

330.

(vi) Divine Retreat vs. Kerala, (2008) 3 SCC 542.

4.11 It is further submitted by learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the appellants that in the present case the High

Court delivered the judgment after a period of six months from

the   date   it   was   reserved   for   judgment.     Therefore,   the

impugned   judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court

deserves to be quashed and set aside.  Reliance is placed in

the decision of this Court in the case of Anil Rai vs. State of

Bihar, (2001) 7 SCC 318.

10

Making   the   above   submissions   and   relying   upon   the

above decisions it is prayed to allow the present appeals and

quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed

by the High Court quashing and setting aside the criminal

proceedings arising out of FIR bearing Case Crime No.260 of

2018   lodged   under   Section   406,   registered   at   PS   –

Husainganj, District – Lucknow.

5. Both   these   appeals   are   vehemently   opposed   by   Shri

Ranjeet Kumar, learned Senior Advocate and Shri Sidhartha

Dave,   learned   Senior   Advocate   appearing   on   behalf   of   the

respective accused.

5.1 Learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   original

accused   have   vehemently   submitted   that   in   the   facts   and

circumstances of the case and after having satisfied that the

ingredients of Sections 406, 420 IPC are not made out and the

case falls within the parameters laid down by this Hon’ble

Court in the case of  Ch.  Bhajan  Lal  vs.  State  of  Haryana

1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 which are required to be considered

while quashing the criminal proceedings, the Hon’ble High

11

Court has not committed any error in quashing and setting

aside the criminal proceedings.

5.2 It is submitted that as such the respondents herein ­

original accused are not at all in anyway responsible for the

missing of the trucks loaded with beer after the same were

dispatched from their company.  It is submitted that in fact

the respondents – original accused delivered the goods to the

transporter   namely   SICAL   Logistic   and   in   turn   hired   two

trucks.   It is submitted that it was the SICAL Logistic who

arranged the vehicles to deliver goods to the informant.  It is

submitted that thereafter the goods have been delivered.  It is

also found by the High Court that there was no loss caused to

the   Excise   Department.     It   is   submitted   that   the   main

grievance/dispute by the informant was with respect to the

rebate and therefore with a mala fide intention, the FIR was

lodged.  That so far as the rebate is concerned, no allegation

was   made   in   the   FIR.     Therefore,   in   the   facts   and

circumstances of the case the High Court has not committed

any   error   in   quashing   and   setting   aside   the   criminal

proceedings, as it was nothing but an abuse of process of law.

12

Relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of  Ch.

Bhajan   Lal   (supra);   Indian   Oil   Corporation   vs.   N.E.P.C.

India Ltd. and others­  reported in  (2006) 6 SCC 736; Rajiv

Thapar (supra) and Jetking Infotrain Ltd. vs. State of U.P.,

(2015)   11   SCC   730.,  it   is  prayed   to   dismiss   the   present

appeals.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties

at length.

6.1 At  the outset, it is required to be noted that  by the

impugned judgment and order the High Court in exercise of

powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has quashed the criminal

proceedings arising out of FIR bearing Case Crime No.260 of

2018   including   the   charge­sheet   filed   by   the   Investigating

Agency as well as the summoning order passed by the learned

Trial Court.

6.2 At the outset, it is required to be noted that the High

Court has delivered the impugned judgment and order after a

period   of   six   months   after   the   matter   was   reserved   for

13

judgment. Though the judgment and order passed by the High

Court may not be set aside on the aforesaid ground only,

however it is always advisable that the High Court delivers the

judgment at the earliest after the arguments are concluded

and the judgment is reserved. While emphasizing the need to

pronounce the reserved judgment at the earliest and within a

reasonable time this Court in the case of Anil Rai (supra) has

observed and held in para 9 as under:

“9. It is true, that  for the High Courts, no

period   for   pronouncement   of   judgment   is

contemplated either under the Civil Procedure Code

or   the   Criminal   Procedure   Code,   but   as   the

pronouncement of the judgment is a part of the

justice dispensation system, it has to be without

delay. In a country like ours where people consider

the Judges only second to God, efforts be made to

strengthen that belief of the common man. Delay in

disposal of the cases facilitates the people to raise

eyebrows,   sometimes   genuinely   which,   if   not

checked, may shake the confidence of the people in

the   judicial   system.   A   time   has   come   when   the

judiciary   itself   has   to   assert   for   preserving   its

stature, respect and regards for the attainment of

the rule of law. For the fault of a few, the glorious

and   glittering   name   of   the   judiciary   cannot   be

permitted   to   be   made   ugly.   It   is   the   policy   and

purpose of law, to have speedy justice for which

efforts are required to be made to come up to the

expectation   of   the   society   of   ensuring   speedy,

untainted and unpolluted justice.”

In the aforesaid decision this Court has also taken note

of the observations made by this Court in another case in the

14

case of Bhagwandas Fatechand Daswani and Ors. vs. HPA

International and Ors., (2000) 2 SCC 13 that “a long delay

in   delivery   of   the   judgment   gives   rise   to   unnecessary

speculations in the minds of the parties in a case”.

7. Having gone through the impugned judgment and order

passed by the High Court by which the High Court has set

aside the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under

Section   482   Cr.P.C.,   it   appears   that   the   High   Court   has

virtually   conducted   a   mini   trial,   which   as   such   is   not

permissible at this stage and while deciding the application

under Section 482 Cr.P.C.   As observed and held by this

Court in a catena of decisions no mini trial can be conducted

by the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482

Cr.P.C.   jurisdiction   and   at   the   stage   of   deciding   the

application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court cannot

get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being

considered.

(See Pratima (supra); Thom (supra); Rajiv (supra) and

Niharika (supra).

15

7.1 Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid

decisions to the facts of the case on hand and the manner in

which the High Court has allowed the petition under Section

482   Cr.P.C.,   we   are   of   the   opinion   that   the   impugned

judgment and order passed by the High Court quashing the

criminal proceedings is unsustainable.   The High Court has

exceeded   in   its   jurisdiction   in   quashing   the   criminal

proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

7.2 It is also required to be noted that even the High Court

itself has opined that the allegations are very serious and it

requires further investigation and that is why the High Court

has   directed   to   conduct   the   investigation   by   CB­CID   with

respect to the FIR No.227 of 2019.  However, while directing

the CB­CID to conduct further investigation/investigation, the

High Court has restricted the scope of investigation.  The High

Court has not appreciated and considered the fact that both

the FIRs namely FIR Nos.260 of 2018 and 227 of 2019 can be

said   to   be   interconnected   and   the   allegations   of   a   larger

conspiracy are required to be investigated.  It is alleged that

the   overall   allegations   are   disappearance   of   the   trucks

16

transporting the beer/contraband goods which are subject to

the rules and regulations of the Excise Department and Excise

Law.  

7.3 The High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings by

observing that there was no loss to the Excise Department.

However,   the   High   Court   has   not   at   all   appreciated   the

allegations of the larger conspiracy.  The FIR need not be an

encyclopedia  (See   Satpal   vs.   Haryana,   (2018)   6  SCC   110

Para 7).

7.4 Even   otherwise,   it   is   required   to   be   noted   that   the

allegation of missing of two trucks was the beginning of the

investigation and when during the investigation it was alleged

that earlier also a number of trucks were missing transporting

contraband goods, the FIR should not have been restricted to

missing of the two trucks only and return of on the goods

thereafter.  The High Court has not at all appreciated and/or

considered the allegation of the larger conspiracy and that

both the FIRs/criminal cases are interconnected and part of

the main conspiracy which is very serious if found to be true.

17

We however refrain from making any further observations as

at this stage of proceedings as we are at the stage of deciding

the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. only and as the trial

of both the cases have yet to take place.  Therefore, we refrain

from making any further observations which may affect the

case of the either of the parties.  Suffice it to say and mention

that in the facts and circumstances of the case the High Court

has committed a grave/serious error in quashing and setting

aside the criminal proceedings arising out of Criminal Case

No.5694 of 2019 and Case Crime No.260 of 2018 PS lodged

under Section 406, registered at PS – Husainganj, District –

Lucknow.

8. In view of the above and for the reason stated above both

these Appeals Succeed.   The impugned judgment and order

passed by the High Court is hereby quashed and set aside to

the   extent   quashing   and   setting   aside   the   criminal

proceedings Criminal Case No.5694 of 2019 arising out of

Case Crime No.260 of 2018 PS lodged under Section 406,

registered at PS – Husainganj, District – Lucknow.

18

The   proceedings   before   the   learned   Trial   Court   in

Criminal Case No.5694 of 2019 are ordered to be restored to

file.  Present Appeals are accordingly Allowed to the aforesaid

extent.

…………………………………J.

                 (M. R. SHAH)

…………………………………J.

                                                 (B.V. NAGARATHNA)

New Delhi, 

July 11, 2022.

19