A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court dealt with allegations of financial impropriety involving parties who exchanged money for promises of securing employment. The appellant sought quashing of an FIR filed by the respondent, alleging delayed and malicious motives. The court emphasized that the police should cautiously handle disputes involving unethical private transactions, as they often misuse criminal justice mechanisms. The FIR was quashed due to unexplained delay, unethical intent, and abuse of legal processes.

Keywords: FIR quashing, abuse of process, unethical contracts, delay in lodging FIR, misuse of police resources.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title:
Deepak Kumar Shrivas & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.

ii) Case Number:
Criminal Appeal No. 1007 of 2024

iii) Judgement Date:
19 February 2024

iv) Court:
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum:
Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

vi) Author:
Justice Vikram Nath

vii) Citation:
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 364; [2024] INSC 117

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – FIR registration and investigation procedure.
• Constitution of India – Article 226 for writ jurisdiction.

ix) Judgments overruled by the case:
None explicitly mentioned.

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects:
Criminal Law, Constitutional Law.

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The appellant challenged the High Court’s dismissal of his writ petition under Article 226, seeking quashing of an FIR. The dispute originated from allegations that the appellant received money for securing employment but failed to deliver, prompting counter-allegations. The appellant contended that the FIR was a retaliatory act and an abuse of legal mechanisms, given prior inquiries into the allegations.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. In 2021, the appellant lodged a complaint with the District Collector, alleging that respondent No. 6 took ₹80,000 initially and ₹20,000 subsequently, promising to secure a government job for his brother. No job was provided, and the respondent stopped responding.

2. An inquiry by the police, initiated on the Collector’s referral, recorded counter-allegations by respondent No. 6, who accused the appellant of taking ₹4 lakhs to secure a job for her daughter.

3. The inquiry found no substantive evidence and recommended closure. Yet, respondent No. 6 lodged an FIR in 2022, accusing the appellant of cheating.

4. The appellant sought quashing of this FIR in the High Court, which was dismissed, leading to the current appeal.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the FIR lodged by respondent No. 6 constitutes an abuse of the criminal justice system.
2. Whether the unexplained delay in filing the FIR invalidates its authenticity.
3. Can such disputes be resolved better through civil remedies than criminal prosecution?

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The FIR is a retaliatory counterblast filed after an adverse inquiry report.
2. The unexplained three-year delay indicates malice and ulterior motives, aimed at coercion rather than justice.
3. The allegations involve an unethical and illegal transaction, rendering the contract unenforceable in civil or criminal forums.
4. Misuse of criminal processes for recovering money distracts law enforcement from more significant issues.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The FIR discloses a cognizable offence; investigation should proceed to uncover the truth.
2. Delay in filing the FIR does not diminish the gravity of the allegations, as substantial money was involved.
3. Allowing quashing of the FIR prematurely could deny justice to the respondent.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

1. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections concerning FIR registration (Section 154) and investigation (Section 173).
2. Constitution of India – Article 226 for writ petitions to challenge criminal proceedings.

I) JUDGEMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi:

1. The FIR lodged after three years of the alleged incident is delayed and lacks credible explanation.
2. The transaction was an unethical and unlawful agreement for job procurement, unsuitable for criminal or civil proceedings.
3. The intent behind filing the FIR was coercive, aimed at recovering money under the threat of prosecution.

b. Obiter Dicta:

1. Police must exercise vigilance when investigating unethical private transactions involving false promises.
2. Such cases waste law enforcement resources and dilute focus from more critical criminal matters.

c. Guidelines:

1. Police should carefully scrutinize disputes involving private financial dealings.
2. Criminal law must not be misused to settle civil disputes or enforce unethical agreements.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred:

1. State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 AIR 604) – Guidelines for quashing FIRs.
2. Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India (2014) 8 SCC 470 – Judicial caution in contractual disputes.

b. Important Statutes Referred:

1. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. Constitution of India.