High Court cannot conduct 'mini trial' while deciding Section 482 CrPC application: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently reiterated that a High Court cannot conduct a 'mini trial' at the stage of deciding an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) [State of Uttar Pradesh and Another v. Akhil Sharda and Others]..A Division Bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna was hearing an appeal assailing the decision of the Allahabad High Court which in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC had quashed the criminal proceedings under Section 406 (criminal breach of trust) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the respondents."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 CrPC jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the application under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considered," the Supreme Court observed..On September 7, 2018, Sanjeet Jaiwal, the manager of M/s Beehive Alcoweb, a firm engaged in the business of beer, sent a demand order on September 11, 2018 for delivery of three trucks of beer to M/s United Breweries Limited (one of the respondents) and transferred a total sum of ₹ 92,98,902 to deliver two trucks in Lucknow and one in Varanasi.United Breweries Limited directed its transporter SICAL Logistics Limited Company to arrange a vehicle and deliver goods to Beehive. Meanwhile, SICAL contacted another transport company, who in turn, hired two trucks with GPS enabled system for delivery of consignment to Beehive in Lucknow.On September 11, 2018, the consignment of the beer was dispatched. However, the GPS devices of both the trucks lost contact with GPS tracking agency on September 13, 2018.With no positive response from the supplier and the goods not being delivered though full payment was made, Sanjeet Jaiwal lodged a First Information Report (FIR) for the offence under Sections 406 and 420 (cheating) of IPC. Meanwhile, manager of SICAL also lodged a separate FIR under Sections 420 and 406 IPC against the drivers of both the trucks and one unknown person.After charge-sheets' were filed in both FIRs, the Magistrate in one of the FIRs issued summoning order. However, subsequently, due goods were delivered to Jaiwal.The respondents including Akhil Sharda, Aravind Padha, Himanshu Tiwari and M/s United Breweries Limited approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of proceedings initiated against them. The High Court allowed the plea and quashed the entire proceedings, chargesheet and summoning order of one FIR.Aggrieved of the same, the appellants have moved the present appeal before the Supreme Court..The appellants argued that the High Court in quashing the entire proceedings of one FIR has failed to consider the fact that the same was interconnected with another FIR and cannot be separated. It was also argued that the High Court failed to consider the allegations in the quashed FIR, relating to disappearances of trucks loaded with beer and it involved allegations of forging data and uploading incorrect data.It was pointed out that even the High Court had agreed that the allegations are serious and require investigation. However, by quashing the proceedings, the High Court has curtailed and narrowed the scope of the investigation.Additionally, it was submitted that while quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court conducted a 'mini trial' which as such is not permissible while exercising such powers.Opposing the plea, the respondents argued that after having satisfied that the ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 IPC are not made out, the High Court was right in quashing the proceedings. It was also contended the respondents are not in anyway responsible for the missing of the trucks loaded with beer after the same were dispatched from their company..The Supreme Court took the view that by setting aside the criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court virtually conducted a mini trial, which is not permissible while deciding the application under Section 482 CrPC.In this backdrop, the Court observed:"...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."The Court, therefore, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court to the extent of quashing and setting aside the criminal proceedings with regard to the first FIR..Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati and Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for the appellants.Senior Advocates Ranjit Kumar and Sidhartha Dave appeared for the respondents..[Read Judgment]