The Hon’ble Supreme Court on November 15, 2018, passed a judgement in the matter of Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Department of Home & Anr., setting aside the judgement and order dated February 2, 2016 passed by the High Court of Delhi. 

Facts of the case: 

Appellants entered into an agreement for development of the property owned by the Appellants with the Respondent No. 2 on 03.06.1993 for construction of a high rise building. Respondent No. 2 paid Rs. 1 Crore to the Appellants in accordance with the clause in the Agreement. The agreement could not be fulfilled as the new building regulations which were introduced prohibited the construction of high rise buildings in the Lutyens Bungalow Zone, where the property was situated. On 14.03.2011, Appellant No. 1 wrote a letter stating that he does not wish to develop the property. Since the Appellants declined all alternate offers from Respondent No. 2 and on the ground that Rs. 1 Crore had not been refunded, Respondent No. 2 filed an FIR on 20.08.2014 against the Appellants under Section 406 of the IPC. Appellants approached the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the FIR dated 20.08.2014. The High court disposed off the Appellants’ Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. on the ground that the Petition has been filed pre-maturely as the case is still at the stage of investigation. Appellants thereafter filed the present SLP. The Hon’ble Supreme Court on the prima facie view of the matter protected the Appellants from arrest and directed that the investigation be continued. Respondent No. 1 thereafter carried out investigation and filed a report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C., before the Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Patiala House Court. Pending this SLP, Respondent No. 1 filed a charge sheet on 03.08.2018. Appellants filed amendment application for adding a prayer for quashing of the charge sheet in addition to the prayer for quashing of the FIR, in the Appeal. 

The question which arose for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was whether a petition for quashing of the FIR was untenable since the proceedings had gone past the stage of FIR and had resulted in a charge sheet. 

Supreme Court’s observation and findings: 

The Hon’ble Supreme Court whilst referring to the decision of Joseph Salvaraj vs. State of Gujarat [(2011) 7 SCC 59] held that there is nothing in the words of Section 482 which restrict the exercise of the power of the Court to prevent the abuse of process or miscarriage of justice only to the stage of FIR. It was observed that it would indeed be travesty to hold that the proceedings initiated by a person can be interfered with at the stage of FIR but not if it has advanced and the allegations have materialized into a charge sheet. On the contrary it could be said that the abuse of process caused by FIR stands aggravated if the FIR has taken the form of a charge sheet after investigation. The power is undoubtedly conferred to prevent abuse of process of any court.  

The Hon’ble Supreme Court after analyzing the facts of the present case and relying upon the decision in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs Bhajan Lal & Ors. [(1992) Supp (1) 335] which sets out  the categories of cases in which the inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. could be exercised,  quashed the FIR and the charge sheet filed against the Appellants.