Holding

Courts must not interfere with police investigations; the FIR cannot be quashed on the grounds raised.

Summary

Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Ltd sought to quash an FIR registered under Sections 34, 471, 468, 467, 420, 419 and 406 IPC for alleged installation of defeat devices in its vehicles. The High Court refused to quash the FIR, granting only protection against arrest. The petitioner argued that the police could not investigate because the matter was sub‑judice before the Supreme Court in civil appeals arising from a National Green Tribunal (NGT) order, and that the complainant’s delay and discrepancy in the number of vehicles purchased warranted dismissal. The Supreme Court held that courts cannot usurp police jurisdiction; a mere delay or factual dispute over vehicle numbers does not merit quashing; the NGT order does not bar a criminal complaint; and questions of fact about defeat devices must be decided by investigation, not by a quash petition. Consequently, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed.

Issues considered

The police can investigate when the subject matter is sub‑judice in civil proceedings before the Supreme Court.
Whether delay in lodging a complaint and inconsistency in the number of vehicles purchased justify quashing the FIR.
Whether the NGT order and pending civil appeals preclude a criminal investigation.
Whether questions of fact regarding defeat devices can be decided in a petition for quashing an FIR.

Legislation cited

Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989s. 112, s. 113, s. 114, s. 115, s. 116, s. 126, s. 1261
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 173, s. 482
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 34, s. 406, s. 419, s. 420, s. 467, s. 468, s. 471
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988s. 110

Subjects

quash petitionFIRpolice investigationsub judicedefeat deviceemissionsNational Green Tribunaldelaycriminal proceduremotor vehicles

Judgment

786 [2020]REPORTS
SUPREME COURT 11 S.C.R. 786 [2020] 11 S.C.R.

A SKODA AUTO VOLKSWAGEN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
v.
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.
(Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 4931 of 2020)
B NOVEMBER 26, 2020
[S. A. BOBDE, A.S. BOPANNA AND
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
C s. 482 – Petition under – Seeking quashing of FIR registered
u/s. 34, 471, 468, 467, 420, 419 and 406 IPC against a company
engaged in manufacture, import and sale of passenger vehicles –
High Court rejected prayer for quashing the FIR – Special Leave
Petition – Plea that police cannot investigate an issue, the substratum
of which is subjudice before Supreme Court against order passed by
D
National Green Tribunal (NGT) and that there was long delay in
lodging the complaint – Held: If perusal of FIR leads to disclosure
of an offence even broadly, law courts are barred from usurping
jurisdiction of police – The order of NGT (appeal against which is
pending before Supreme Court) passed on the applications which
E were broad and general, cannot be taken as an impediment to lodge
a complaint, for an individual purchaser of car – Substratum of
police complaint cannot be said to be subjudice before Supreme Court
– Interference with impugned order not called for.
Dismissing the SLP, the Court
F HELD: 1. The law is well settled that Courts would not
thwart any investigation. If a perusal of the first information report
leads to disclosure of an offence even broadly, law courts are
barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two
organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities
G and one ought not to tread over the other sphere. [Para 41][798-
G-H; 799-C]
King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmed AIR 1945 PC
18; State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) 1 Suppl.
SCC 335 : [1990] 3 Suppl. SCR 259; S.M. Datta v.
H State of Gujarat (2001) 7 SCC 659 : [2001] 2 Suppl.
SCR 140 – relied on. 786
SKODA AUTO VOLKSWAGEN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. 787
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2. The mere delay on the part of the 3 rd Respondent- A
complainant in lodging the complaint, cannot by itself be a ground
to quash the FIR. The question whether the 3 rd Respondent-
complainant purchased 3 vehicles as revealed by the VAHAN
Portal of the Government or 7 vehicles as claimed by him in his
complaint, is a question of fact which has to be established only
B
in the course of investigation/trial. In a petition for quashing the
FIR, the Court cannot go into disputed questions of fact.
[Paras 18, 19][793-F-G]
3. The order of the NGT, passed on the applications filed
by certain individuals not claiming as purchasers of vehicles,
cannot be taken as an impediment for an individual who purchased C
cars from the manufacturers, to lodge a complaint, if he has actually
suffered on account of any representation made by the
manufacturers. Two original applications came to be filed before
the NGT in the year 2015, alleging that the manufacturers of the
vehicles in question were employing deceit devices. The filing of D
the original applications coincided with the issue of notice by the
Automotive Research Association of India to the manufacturers.
The applicants before the NGT had not sought any relief for
themselves, as purchasers of vehicles. The reliefs sought by the
applicants before the NGT were broad and general. This is why
the NGT, by its final order dated 07.03.2019 directed only the E
CPCB to consider the initiation of prosecution in the light of the
applicable statutory regime, while ordering the manufacturers to
deposit Rs.500 crores as compensation for the damage caused
to the environment. The interim order passed by this Court not
to take any coercive steps has to be understood only in the F
context of the directions of the NGT which had became the subject
matter of the Civil Appeals. [Paras 21, 22, 23 and 27][794-B-E;
795-A]
4. The question whether deceit devices are installed in the
cars purchased by the 3rd respondent and the question whether G
there was any representation in this regard to the petitioner, are
all questions of fact, peculiar and particular to the 3rd respondent.
NGT had no occasion to examine the cars purchased by the 3rd
respondent. At this stage no one can presume whether the
defence of the manufacturer to the police complaint will be purely
H
788 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 11 S.C.R.

A on a question of fact or purely on a question of law or on mixed
questions of fact and law. If the petitioner takes a defence that no
such devices were installed in the cars purchased by the 3 rd
respondent or that there was no (mis) representation in this
regard, it will be a pure question of fact, which cannot be gone
into in a quash petition. If the petitioner takes a defence that the
B
installation of such devices, though true, does not violate any
law, then it will be a pure question of law. The Court may be
entitled to go into this question in a quash petition, provided the
petitioner comes up with a categorical admission that they had
installed such devices and yet there was no violation of the law.
C The petitioner is not expected to disclose their defence at this
stage nor can it be speculated what type of defence the petitioner
would have to the prosecution. [Para 37][797-C-F]
5. The proceedings before the NGT were not intended to
address issues relating to individuals, such as (i) whether any
D emissions manipulation software, called in common parlance as
‘defeat devices’ were installed in the vehicles purchased by
certain individuals; and (ii) whether any representation was made
to the purchasers of the cars in which such devices had been
installed, about the emission efficiency level of the cars.
Therefore, it is not correct to say that the substratum of the police
E complaint is something that is already the subject matter of
adjudication before this Court in the appeals arising out of the
order of the NGT. As a matter of fact, the High Court has been
fair to the petitioner, by granting protection against arrest till the
filing of the report under section 173(2) of Cr. P.C. [Paras 39,
F 40][798-D-G]
Case Law Reference
[1990] 3 Suppl. SCR 259 relied on Para 41
[1990] 3 Suppl. SCR 259 relied on Para 41
G [2001] 2 Suppl. SCR 140 relied on Para 41
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave
Petition (Criminal) No. 4931 of 2020.

H
SKODA AUTO VOLKSWAGEN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. THE 789
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

From the Judgment and Order dated 01.10.2020 of the High Court A
of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 9223 of
2020.
Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Mukul Rohatgi, Maninder Singh, Sr.
Advs, Bishwajit Dubey, Ms. Surabhi Khattar, Aman Singhania, Sumit
Attri for M/s Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, Vineet Malhotra, Ayush Gupta, B
Swaroop Anand Mishra, Ajay Marwah, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.
1. Aggrieved by the refusal of the High Court to quash a First
Information Report (FIR for short) registered against them for the C
offences punishable under Sections 34, 471, 468, 467, 420, 419 and 406
IPC, the petitioner has come up with the above Special Leave Petition.
2. We have heard Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned senior
counsel appearing for the petitioner. Mr. Maninder Singh, learned senior
counsel appears for the 3rd Respondent, who is the de facto complainant.
D
3. The petitioner is a Company headquartered in Pune and is
engaged in the business of manufacture, import and sale of passenger
vehicles in India. It is claimed that the petitioner has been formed by the
amalgamation of three Companies by name Skoda Auto India Private
Limited, Volkswagen India Private Limited and Volkswagen Group Sales
India Private Limited. The petitioner claims that they are responsible for E
the business operations of five automobile brands namely, Skoda,
Volkswagen, Audi, Porsche and Lamborgini.
4. The Automotive Research Association of India, which is a
research institution of the automotive industry attached to the Ministry
of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises of the Government of India F
issued a notice dated 04.11.2015 to the Managing Directors of Skoda
Auto India Private Limited, Volkswagen India Private Limited and
Volkswagen Group Sales India Private Limited, calling upon them to
show cause as to why they should not come to the conclusion that the
vehicles manufactured and sold by them in India, are in violation of the
requirements of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. It was alleged in the G
said notice that the study carried out by them on limited vehicle models
fitted with Diesel EA 189 Engines led them to believe that the vehicles
manufactured by Volkswagen, when tested on road, indicate 3-9 times
more NOx pollution compared with the tests carried out in the laboratory
H
790 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 11 S.C.R.

A on Modified Indian Driving Cycle (MIDC). It was also alleged in the
said notice that they had reason to believe that Diesel EA 189 Engines
fitted in BS-IV vehicles are equipped with what are called ‘defeat
devices’.
5. At about the same time, two original applications came to be
B filed before the National Green Tribunal (NGT for short), Principal
Bench. Both the applications were primarily against Skoda Auto India
Private Limited, Volkswagen India Private Limited and Volkswagen
Group Sales India Private Limited. Apart from these three companies,
the Union of India (UOI), the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB)
and a few others were also made parties to the original applications.
C 6. The particulars of these original applications are presented in a
tabular column for easy appreciation:-

O.A.No. Name of the Names of Respondents Reliefs sought
applicant/applicants
509 /2015 SaloniAilawadi 1. Union of India through its 1. Directing Respondents 1-3
Secretary, Ministry of Heavy to disallow the manufacturing,
D Industries & Public Enterprises. assembly and sale of the
vehicles of Respondents 4-6
2.Ministry of Environment, in India till it is established
Forest and Climate Change, that they are not employing
Through Secretary any deceit devices or
technology;
3.Central Pollution Control
Board, Through its Chairman 2. To direct the Respondents 1-
3 to inspect and check all the
4. Volkswagen India Pvt; Ltd., vehicles manufactured and sold
E Through its Managing Director in India to ensure that no deceit
devices are used;
5.Skoda Auto India Private
Limited, Through its Managing 3.To direct respondents 4-7 to
Director stop production, assembly and
sale of those vehicles; and
6. Volkswagen Group Sales
India Private Limited, Through 4. To direct respondents 4-7 to
its Managing Director rectify the engines of vehicles
already sold in India at their
F 7. Volkswagen AG, Through cost.
Chairman of the Board of
Management

527/2015 1. Mr. Satvinder Singh 1. Volkswagen India Private 1. To restrain
Sodhi Limited, Maharashtra Respondents 1-6 from selling
any further automobile with
2. Mr. Vellore Ramesh 2. Volkswagen Group Sales the defeat device which
Neelakantan India Private Limited, violated the applicable
G Maharashtra emission norms;
3. Mr. Deepit Singh
2. To direct Respondents 106
4. Sara International 3. Volkswagen AG, Germany to disgorge all the profits
Limited made by selling automobiles
with cheat devices from the
year 2008; and

3. To direct Respondents 1-6
to pay damages for restoration
H of environment.
SKODA AUTO VOLKSWAGEN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. THE 791
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.]

4. S k od a A uto In dia L im i te d, A
M a har ash tra

5. S k od a A uto A S , C ze ch
Re p ub lic

6. D r .In g. h.e.F .P or sc he A G ,
G er m a n y
B
7. Ce n tr a l Pollu tio n C o ntr o l
Bo a rd, D el hi.

8. A u tom otiv e R ese arc h
A ss oc iatio n of In di a, P u ne

9. U n ion of Ind ia T hrou gh
M in istr y of H eavy C
Ind us trie s and P ub lic
E nt erp ris es , N e w D e lhi

1 0. G o ver nm en t o f N ation al
Ca p ita l T e rrito ry o f Ind ia,
T hro ug h D e lhi P ollu tion
Co n tro l C om m i tte e, D elhi
D
7. On 16.11.2018, the NGT recorded a prima facie finding that
the claim of the manufacturers that they had not caused any damage to
the environment, was not acceptable. The Tribunal constituted a joint
team to give an expert opinion and in the mean time directed the
manufacturers to deposit Rs. 100 crores with the CPCB.
E
8. The manufacturers filed appeals before this Court in C.A. Nos.
11928 and 11929 of 2018, against the preliminary finding and the interim
direction issued by the NGT. During the pendency of those appeals, the
Expert Team filed a Report.
9. Therefore, this Court disposed of the aforesaid Civil Appeals F
giving liberty to the manufacturers to file objections to the Report of the
Expert Team and directed the Tribunal to consider those objections and
to pass orders.
10. Pursuant to the said order of this Court, the NGT allowed the
manufacturers to file objections and heard both the original applications
G
and disposed of the same by order dated 07.03.2019. Some of the findings
and directions by the Tribunal were:-
(i) That the manufacturers had in fact used cheat devices to
suppress the laboratory tests;
(ii) That NO x emission was higher by Portable Emission H
Measurement System (PEMS);
792 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 11 S.C.R.

A (iii) That Volkswagen vehicles gave much less NOx emission under
the Warm Test Cycles after recall;
(iv) That the emissions measured on PEMS were higher than BS-
IV limit;
(v) That the manufacturers are liable to pay damages to the tune
B of Rs.500 crores; and
(vi) That the CPCB shall consider initiation of prosecution in the
light of applicable statutory regime.
11. Challenging the said order dated 07.03.2019 of the NGT, two
C Civil Appeals were filed in C.A.Nos. 4069 and 4086 of 2019. On
06.05.2019 these appeals were taken up along with another Civil Appeal
filed by the Inter-Continental Association of lawyers and this court
ordered the issue of notice in the appeals. In the mean time, this Court
directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against Volkswagen India
Private Limited.
D
12. While things stand thus, the 3rd Respondent herein lodged a
complaint with the S.H.O., Gautam Budh Nagar, on 10.07.2020, alleging
that he had bought 7 Audi Brand cars from the authorised dealers of the
manufacturing Companies; that at the time of purchase, he got it clarified
from the Company that they had not installed any cheat devices in the
E vehicles sold in India; that however, the authorities in India found out a
higher emission of NOx; that even the NGT imposed a fine; that the
complainant thereafter realised that he had been duped by the Company;
that knowing fully well that their vehicles have been installed with cheat
devices, the manufacturer had prepared wrong records and documents;
F that the manufacturers and the officers of the manufacturers are
therefore guilty of various offences under the IPC and that therefore
action should be initiated against them.
13. Contending that as per the particulars mentioned in the
VAHAN Portal of the Government, the 3rd Respondent herein had
purchased only 3 and not 7 vehicles; that the complaint lodged by the
G
3rd Respondent after more than 2½ years of the purchase of the vehicles,
was malicious and full of false particulars; and that the FIR is based
entirely upon the order of the NGT, which is the subject matter of two
civil appeals before this Court, the petitioner filed a Criminal Miscellaneous
Writ Petition No.9233 of 2020 before the High Court of Judicature at
H
SKODA AUTO VOLKSWAGEN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. THE 793
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.]

Allahabad. In the said Writ Petition, the petitioners sought quashing of A
the FIR.
14. By an order dated 01.10.2020, the Allahabad High Court
rejected the prayer for quashing of the FIR. However, the High Court
protected the officers of the petitioner against arrest till the submission
of the Report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. subject however to the B
condition that they shall cooperate in the investigation and also appear
as and when called upon to assist in the investigation.
15. Not satisfied with a mere protection against arrest and the
refusal of the Allahabad High Court to quash the FIR, the petitioner has
come up with the above SLP. C
16. The main contentions of the petitioner are:-
(i) That the Police cannot investigate an issue, the substratum
of which is sub judice before this Court in the civil appeals
arising out of the order of the NGT; and
D
(ii) That the High Court failed to take note of the long delay on
the part of the 3rd Respondent in lodging the complaint and
also the fact that the VAHAN Portal of the Government
shows the purchase of only 3 vehicles as against the claim of
the 3rd Respondent to have purchased 7 vehicles.
E
17. Let us take up the second contention first, since it is capable
of being dealt with, without much ado. The second contention has two
parts namely (i) that there is a long delay in lodging the complaint and (ii)
that the 3rd Respondent-complainant, appears to have purchased only 3
vehicles as against his claim to have purchased 7 vehicles.
F
18. The question whether the 3 rd Respondent-complainant
purchased 3 vehicles as revealed by the VAHAN Portal of the
Government or 7 vehicles as claimed by him in his complaint, is a question
of fact which has to be established only in the course of investigation/
trial. In a petition for quashing the FIR, the Court cannot go into disputed
questions of fact. G
rd
19. The mere delay on the part of the 3 Respondent-complainant
in lodging the complaint, cannot by itself be a ground to quash the FIR.
The law is too well settled on this aspect to warrant any reference to
precedents. Therefore, the second ground on which the petitioner seeks
to quash the FIR cannot be countenanced. H
794 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 11 S.C.R.

A 20. The first contention revolves around the pendency of the Civil
Appeals arising out of the order of the NGT and the interim order passed
by this Court in the Civil Appeals.
21. As stated earlier, two original applications came to be filed
before the NGT in the year 2015, alleging that the manufacturers of the
B vehicles in question were employing deceit devices. The filing of the
original applications coincided with the issue of notice by the Automotive
Research Association of India to the manufacturers. We have already
indicated broadly, in paragraphs 5-10 above as to what transpired before
the NGT.
C 22. The applicants before the NGT did not seek any relief for
themselves, as purchasers of vehicles. The reliefs sought by the applicants
before the NGT were broad and general. This is why the NGT, by its
final order dated 07.03.2019 directed only the CPCB to consider the
initiation of prosecution in the light of the applicable statutory regime,
while ordering the manufacturers to deposit Rs.500 crores as
D compensation for the damage caused to the environment.
23. Therefore, the order of the NGT, passed on the applications
filed by certain individuals not claiming as purchasers of vehicles, cannot
be taken as an impediment for an individual who purchased cars from
the manufacturers, to lodge a complaint, if he has actually suffered on
E account of any representation made by the manufacturers.
24. The interim order passed by this Court on 06.05.2019 in Civil
Appeal Nos. 4069 and 4086 of 2019, while issuing notice reads as follows:-
“In the meantime, no coercive steps shall be taken against the
F appellant viz., Volkswagen India Private Limited.”
25. The aforesaid interim order correlates only to the directions
issued by the NGT in paragraphs 29, 30 and 32 of its order dated
07.03.2019. The direction contained in Paragraph 30 of the order of the
NGT dated 07.03.2019 reads as follows:-
G “We leave it open to the CPCB to consider initiation of prosecution
in the light of applicable statutory regime.”
26. In paragraphs 29 and 32 of its order, the NGT directed the
manufacturers to deposit compensation to the tune of Rs.500 crores
within 2 months.
H
SKODA AUTO VOLKSWAGEN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. THE 795
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.]

27. Therefore, the interim order passed by this Court not to take A
any coercive steps has to be understood only in the context of the
aforesaid directions of the NGT which became the subject matter of the
Civil Appeals. Hence it is futile to contend that the pendency of the Civil
Appeals and the interim order passed by this Court should be taken as a
deterrent for anyone else to lodge a police complaint and seek an
B
investigation.
28. Dr. A.M. Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioner strenuously contended that the contents of the complaint lodged
by the 3rd Respondent-complainant with the Police were nothing but a
reproduction of the contentions made before the NGT and that actually
the substratum of the police complaint, is what is sub judice before this C
court. Therefore, he contends that the police cannot investigate into the
same set of allegations which form the subject matter of proceedings
pending adjudication before this court.
29. But we do not think so. A little elaboration is required to show
why we cannot agree with the above contention of the learned senior D
counsel appearing for the petitioner.
30. Section 110(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 empowers the
Central Government to make rules, regulating the construction, equipment
and maintenance of motor vehicles with respect to all or any of the
matters enumerated in Clauses (a) to (p). Clause (g) of Sub-section (1) E
of Section 110 relates to “the emission of smoke, visible vapour,
sparks, ashes, grit, or oil”.
31. In exercise of powers conferred by Section 110(1), the Central
Government issued a set of rules known as The Central Motor Vehicles
Rules, 1989. F
32. Rules 112 to 114 of those Rules deal in general with “smoke,
vapour, spark, ashes, grit and oil”. Rules 115 and 116 deal specifically
with “emissions of smoke, vapour” etc., from motor vehicles and “test
for smoke emission level and Carbon Monoxide (CO) level for motor
vehicles”. These Rules correspond to Clause (g) of Sub-section (1) of G
Section 110.
33. Rule 126 mandates every manufacturer or importer of motor
vehicles other than trailers and semi-trailers to submit the prototype of
the vehicle manufactured or imported by him for testing by the agencies
indicated therein. Rule 126A enables the testing agencies referred to in H
796 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 11 S.C.R.

A Rule 126 to conduct tests on the vehicles drawn from the production line
of the manufacturer to verify whether these vehicles conform to the
provisions of the Rules.
34. In order to give effect to the mandate of the statutory
prescription, the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, issued a
B document bearing No. MoRTH/CMV/TAP-116-116, Issue No.4, which
prescribes the test method, testing equipment and other related procedure
for the purpose of testing vehicles for verifying compliance with Rules
115 and 126A of the Rules for “Type Approval and Conformity of
Production”. The document also contains the total procedure for checking
of the in-service vehicles for idling CO/HC for vehicles fitted with petrol/
C CNG/LPG Engines. This document is divided into 15 parts. Part-XIV
contains the details of standards for Tailpipe Emissions from vehicles
and Test Procedures Effective for Mass Emission Standards.
35. Clause No.2.27 of Chapter-1, Part-XIV of the aforesaid
document defines what is called a “Defeat Device”. It reads as
D follows:-
“Defeat Device means any element of design which senses
temperature, vehicle speed, engine rotational speed,
transmission gear, manifold vacuum or any other parameter
for the purpose of activating, modelling, delaying or
E deactivating the operation of any part of the emission control
system, that reduces the effectiveness of the emission control
system under conditions which may reasonably be expected
to be encountered in normal vehicle operation and use. Such
an element of design may not be considered a defeat device if
F 1. The need of the device is justified in terms of protecting the
engine against damage or accident and for safe operation of the
vehicle, or
2. The device does not function beyond the requirements of engine
starting or,
G
3. Conditions are substantially included in the Type I or Type VI
test procedure.”
36. The allegations in the complaint lodged by the 3rd respondent
herein, are to the following effect:
H
SKODA AUTO VOLKSWAGEN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. THE 797
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.]

(i) that “at the time of purchase and taking delivery of the vehicles, A
the complainant got clarified from the accused persons whether the
vehicles in India were also fitted with cheat devices”;
(ii) that despite the clarification issued by them that they had not
installed any cheat devices, in the vehicles meant to be sold in India, the
cars purchased by the complainant were found to contain such defeat B
devices; and
(iii) that therefore, the manufacturer is guilty of commission of
various offences.
37. The question whether such devices are installed in the cars
purchased by the 3rd respondent herein and the question whether there C
was any representation in this regard to the petitioner, are all questions
of fact, peculiar and particular to the 3rd respondent herein. NGT had no
occasion to examine the cars purchased by the 3rd respondent herein. At
this stage no one can presume whether the defence of the manufacturer
to the police complaint will be purely on a question of fact or purely on a D
question of law or on mixed questions of fact and law. If the petitioner
takes a defence that no such devices were installed in the cars purchased
by the 3rd respondent or that there was no (mis)representation in this
regard, it will be a pure question of fact, which cannot be gone into in a
quash petition. If the petitioner takes a defence that the installation of
such devices, though true, does not violate any law, then it will be a pure E
question of law. We may be entitled to go into this question in a quash
petition, provided the petitioner comes up with a categorical admission
that they had installed such devices and yet there was no violation of the
law. We do not expect the petitioner to disclose their defence at this
stage nor would we speculate what type of defence the petitioner would F
have to the prosecution.
38. It may not be out of context to mention here that the European
Union woke up way back in 2007 to the reality of car makers installing
a software that manipulate exhaust emissions, depending upon whether
the car ran on a test stand or on the road. After the European G
Commission’s Joint Research Centre found in 2011 that the levels of
harmful NOx emissions far exceeded the prescribed levels, a study
conducted by the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
revealed similar results in the United States. In September-2015,
allegations of installation of manipulation devices by car manufacturers
H
798 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 11 S.C.R.

A emerged from the US Environmental Protection Agency and this triggered
investigations in several European Union States. After claims were lodged
and legal action initiated, the German Federal Motor Transport Authority
appears to have given permission in June-2016 for the recall of about 2
million vehicles across Europe. In the light of these developments, one
of the manufacturers entered into an agreement with the US
B
Environmental Protection Agency in December-2016 giving certain
options to the customers. These and the subsequent developments, which
attained notoriety as the diesel-gate scandal, led to the German Federal
Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof-BGH) giving a ruling on May 25,
2020 in favour of the car owners for damages.
C 39. It is in the backdrop of what transpired in Europe and U.S.A.,
during the period from 2015 to 2019 that the action initiated by the
Automotive Research Association of India in November 2015 and the
proceedings that went on before the National Green Tribunal from the
year 2015 to the year 2019, have to be seen. All of them were part of the
D global outrage that actually concerned the damage caused to the
environment by the emissions from the cars allegedly fitted with
manipulative devices. The proceedings before the NGT were not
intended to address issues relating to individuals, such as (i) whether
any emissions manipulation software, called in common parlance as
‘defeat devices’ were installed in the vehicles purchased by certain
E individuals; and (ii) whether any representation was made to the
purchasers of the cars in which such devices had been installed, about
the emission efficiency level of the cars.
40. Therefore, we are unable to agree with the contention of the
learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the substratum of the police
F complaint is something that is already the subject matter of adjudication
before this Court in the appeals arising out of the order of the NGT. As
a matter of fact, the High Court has been fair to the petitioner, by granting
protection against arrest till the filing of the report under section 173(2)
of the Code. We do not think that the petitioner can ask for anything
G more.
41. It is needless to point out that ever since the decision of the
Privy Council in King Emperor vs. Khwaja Nazir Ahmed1, the law is
well settled that Courts would not thwart any investigation. It is only in
cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in
1
H AIR 1945 PC 18
SKODA AUTO VOLKSWAGEN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. THE 799
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.]

the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation A
to go on. As cautioned by this Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan
Lal2, the power of quashing should be exercised very sparingly and with
circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. While examining
a complaint, the quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embark
upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the
B
allegations made in the FIR or in the complaint. In S.M. Datta vs. State
of Gujarat3, this Court again cautioned that criminal proceedings ought
not to be scuttled at the initial stage. Quashing of a complaint should
rather be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule. In S.M. Datta
(supra), this Court held that if a perusal of the first information report
leads to disclosure of an offence even broadly, law courts are barred C
from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the
State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to
tread over the other sphere.
42. In view of what is stated above, the special leave petition is
dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. D

Kalpana K. Tripathy SLP dismissed.

E

F

G

2
(1992) Supp. (1) SCC 335
3
(2001) 7 SCC 659 H