High Court cannot place reliance on “draft chargesheet” to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a High Court cannot place reliance on a “draft chargesheet” which is yet to be placed before the Magistrate, to quash the criminal proceedings in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) [Jitul Jentilal Kotecha vs State of Gujarat].The well settled test to be applied by the High Court for exercise of its powers under Section 482 for quashing an FIR is whether the allegations in the complaint as they stand, without adding or detracting from the complaint, prima facie establish the ingredients of the offence alleged, a Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and BV Nagarathna held.The High Court cannot test the veracity of the allegations or proceed in the manner that a judge conducting a trial would, on the basis of the evidence collected during the course of trial, the apex court said placing reliance in its own judgment in Mahendra KC v. State of Karnataka. The top court also said that a distinct position arises when the chargesheet has been filed before a Magistrate and proceedings under Section 482 are pending before the High Court. In such cases, the High Court must take into consideration the material collected during the investigation, as has been held by a two-judge Bench of the top Court in Kaptan Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh. "However, the High Court cannot place reliance on a “draft chargesheet” which is yet to be placed before the Magistrate to quash the criminal proceedings under Section 482," the Court made it clear.The Court was hearing an appeal against a judgment of the Gujarat High Court which had quashed proceedings against the respondents (except for charges against two respondents) for offences punishable under Sections 385, 389, 418, 477, 506 (2), 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).The order was passed based on a draft chargesheet placed on record by two other respondents who were not even named in the first information report (FIR) but whose names figured in the draft chargesheet.These two respondents had first secured anticipatory bail from the Sessions Court before moving High Court under Section 482.The Court observed that the High Court had proceeded to entertain petitions for quashing under Section 482 “at the behest of persons who were not named in the FIR purely on the basis of their names appearing in the draft chargesheet”..“A draft chargesheet was placed before the High Court by the investigating officer only in order to seek its permission, pursuant to the interim order, for submitting the charge-sheet to the competent court,” Supreme Court said..Interestingly, the apex court noted that draft chargesheet in this case had recorded the filing of the petitions for quashing in the High Court which would indicate that even before the chargesheet was brought to the notice of the High Court, petitions for quashing had already been filed.The High Court ought to have taken note of these developments, the Supreme Court said. .“The appellant has submitted both in the course of the oral and written submissions that these developments indicate that the accused were complicit with the police. The High Court should have been alive to the abuse of its process,” the judgment said..The top court agreed with the submission by the appellant that an apprehension of arrest may give rise to an application for anticipatory bail but not to a quashing petition at the behest of a person not named in the FIR.The appellants had submitted fact that these accused knew that they will be named in the draft charge-sheet gives rise to the inference that the accused were in collusion with the police.The Supreme Court said that the High Court should have taken serious note of the maintainability of such petitions and questioned the accused on the source of their knowledge that they will be arraigned as accused in the draft chargesheet.The High Court, thus, transgressed the limitations on the exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC in quashing the FIR and all consequential proceedings."There has been a clear abuse of the process before the High Court. We accordingly set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 8 January 2019,” the Supreme Court ruled..[Read Judgment]