Hazari Lal Gupta versus Rameshwar Prashad & Anr. — Cheating and Forgery | Supreme Court (1972)

Hazari Lal Gupta versus Rameshwar Prashad & Anr. — Cheating and Forgery | Supreme Court (1972)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings based on the first information report against the appellant could be quashed under s. 561-A CrPC, the appellant urging absence of a s. 188 CrPC certificate of the High Commissioner for India, absence of sanction of the Director of Foreign Exchange, non-placement of the investigating officer's s. 169 CrPC report, and absence of any case against him on merits. +2 more

Court's answer

In exercising jurisdiction under s. 561-A CrPC the High Court can quash proceedings if there is no legal evidence or if there is any impediment to the institution or continuance of proceedings, but the High Court does not ordinarily enquire whether the evidence is reliable or not.

Ratio / Principle

Sections 496, 497 and 498 CrPC are not exhaustive of the powers of the court in regard to terms and conditions of bail, particularly when the High Court deals with such cases under s. 561-A; the apprehension of the appellant jumping bail could not be brushed aside, and if the appellant wanted to retain his passport the court might not have granted bail at all.

Key takeaways

Having complied with the High Court's orders of 21 July 1970 (reduced sureties) and 21 August 1970 (surrender of passport) and having been released on bail, the appellant could not again come up under s. 561-A CrPC before the High Court for modifying and revising the orders passed by the High Court.ratio¶59
Where investigation into the circumstances of an alleged cognizable offence is carried on under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, the High Court does not interfere with such investigation, because it would thereby impede the investigation and the jurisdiction of statutory authorities acting under the Code.ratio¶69

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Supreme Court (Ray and Palekar, JJ.; judgment by Ray, J.), 2 December 1971 — Criminal Appeals Nos. 110 to 113 of 1971, by special leave against the Allahabad High Court's order dated March 22, 1971 dismissing the appellant's s. 561-A CrPC applications. The appellant, a UK-based businessman, arrested under ss. 406/420 IPC on a carpet-trade FIR, was released on conditioned bail and directed to surrender his passport; his subsequent s. 561-A bid to quash the proceedings, recover the passport and cancel the travel bar failed. Held: (i) under s. 561-A the High Court may quash proceedings only where there is no legal evidence or an impediment to institution or continuance, and does not ordinarily test reliability of evidence; (ii) it does not interfere with an investigation lawfully carried on under the Code; (iii) ss. 496-498 CrPC are not exhaustive of bail-condition powers, and flight apprehension justified the passport-surrender direction; (iv) orders complied with cannot be re-opened under s. 561-A; (v) questions of s. 188 certificate and Foreign Exchange sanction left open for trial. R. P. Kapur and S. N. Basak relied on. Appeals dismissed.

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated March 22, 1971 of the High Court at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Petitions Nos. 2675 to 2678 of 1970 dismissing the appellant's applications under s. 561-A CrPC seeking quashing of the FIR-based proceedings, release of his passport and cancellation of the restriction on leaving India.¶30
High Court at Allahabad · March 22, 1971
Prior proceeding
Four carpet-manufacturer complainants of Bhadohi, District of Varanasi, who had dealings with the appellant since 1962, lodged complaints on or about 4 July 1970 regarding unpaid price of carpets sent to the appellant (payment withheld from 1965).¶35
Prior proceeding
Appellant was arrested for offences under sections 406 and 420 IPC on the first information report of the complainants.¶36
Prior proceeding
The Additional District Magistrate, Gyanpur refused bail; on 13 July 1970 the appellant applied for bail before the Sessions Judge, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh.¶38
Prior proceeding
Sessions Judge's bail terms: enlargement on bail with two sureties in each of the four cases (Rs. 40,000, Rs. 30,000, Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 15,000 respectively), personal bond of the like amount in each case, and a condition not to leave India without permission of the court. Appellant was unable to furnish the sureties.¶43
Prior proceeding
On the appellant's application for modification, the High Court at Allahabad on 21 July 1970 reduced the surety to Rs. 10,000 in each case with a personal bond of the like amount.¶43
Prior proceeding
On the complainants' application under s. 498 read with s. 561-A CrPC (apprehension that the appellant would jump bail), the High Court at Allahabad on 21 August 1970 directed that the appellant further surrender his passport to the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Varanasi before enlargement on bail.¶44
Prior proceeding
Appellant was released on bail on 21 September 1970 after furnishing surety of Rs. 10,000 in each case and surrendering his passport to the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Varanasi.¶44
Prior proceeding
After release, the appellant moved a fresh application under s. 561-A CrPC in the High Court praying (i) quashing of the proceedings based on the FIR, (ii) modification of the 21 August 1970 order and release of his passport, and (iii) cancellation of the restriction not to leave India.¶45