STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.versusAKHIL SHARDA & ORS.

772                      [2022]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT    6 S.C.R. 772                [2022] 6 S.C.R.


A                   STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
                                        v.
                           AKHIL SHARDA & ORS.
                        (Criminal Appeal No.840 of 2022)
B                                 JULY 11, 2022
               [M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
             Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 482 – Quashing of
      criminal proceedings – Sustainability of – On facts, FIRs u/ss. 406
      and 420 IPC – Allegations relating to disappearance of trucks
C
      loaded with beer from highways – High Court quashed the criminal
      proceedings arising out of the FIR including the charge-sheet filed
      by the Investigating Agency as well as the summoning order passed
      by the trial court – On appeal, held: High Court virtually conducted
      a mini trial, which was not permissible at this stage – At the stage of
D     deciding the application u/s. 482, the High Court cannot get into
      appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considered –
      Overall allegations are disappearance of the trucks transporting
      the beer/contraband goods which are subject to the rules and
      regulations of the Excise Department and Excise Law – High Court
      quashed the criminal proceedings by observing that there was no
E
      loss to the Excise Department – High Court did not appreciate and/
      or consider the allegations of a larger conspiracy, and that both
      the FIRs are interconnected and part of the main conspiracy which
      is very serious if found to be true – Thus, the High Court exceeded
      in its jurisdiction – Judgment and order passed by the High Court
F     quashing the criminal proceedings is unsustainable, and thus,
      quashed and set aside.
             Judgment/Order: Pronouncement of – Speedy disposal – Need
      for – High Court delivered the judgment after a period of six months
      from the date it was reserved for judgment – Held: It is always
G     prudent that the High Court delivers the judgment at the earliest
      after the arguments are concluded and the judgment is reserved.
            Allowing the appeals, the Court
           HELD: 1.1 Having gone through the impugned judgment
      and order passed by the High Court by which the High Court set
H
                                       772
 STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. v. AKHIL SHARDA &                        773
                      ORS.

aside the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR bearing Case          A
Crime No. 260 including the charge-sheet filed by the
Investigating Agency as well as the summoning order passed by
the trial court, in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
it appears that the High Court virtually conducted a mini trial,
which as such is not permissible at this stage and while deciding       B
the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No mini trial can be
conducted by the High Court in exercise of powers under Section
482 Cr.P.C. jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the application
under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court cannot get into
appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considered.
                                                                        C
[Para 7][782-F-H]
      1.2 Even the High Court itself has opined that the
allegations are very serious and it requires further investigation
and that is why the High Court has directed to conduct the
investigation by CB-CID with respect to the FIR No. 227 of 2019.        D
However, while directing the CB-CID to conduct further
investigation/investigation, the High Court restricted the scope
of investigation. The High Court did not appreciate and consider
the fact that both the FIRs namely FIR Nos.260 of 2018 and 227
of 2019 can be said to be interconnected and the allegations of a
larger conspiracy are required to be investigated. It is alleged        E
that the overall allegations are disappearance of the trucks
transporting the beer/contraband goods which are subject to the
rules and regulations of the Excise Department and Excise Law.
The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings by observing
that there was no loss to the Excise Department. However, the           F
High Court did not at all appreciate the allegations of the larger
conspiracy. The FIR need not be an encyclopedia. [Para 7.2,
7.3][783-C-E]
      Satpal v. Haryana (2018) 6 SCC 110 – relied on.
                                                                        G
      1.3 Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that 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
                                                                        H
774            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2022] 6 S.C.R.


A     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. However,
B     this Court refrains from making any further observations as at
      this stage of proceedings, the stage is of deciding the application
      under Section 482 Cr.P.C. only and as the trial of both the cases
      have yet to take place. In the facts and circumstances of the case
      the High Court has committed a grave/serious error in quashing
      and setting aside the criminal proceedings arising out of Criminal
C
      Case No.5694 of 2019 and Case Crime No.260 of 2018 PS lodged
      under Section 406. [Para 7.4][783-F-H; 784-A-B]
            1.4 The impugned judgment and order passed by the High
      Court quashing the criminal proceedings is unsustainable. The
D     High Court exceeded in its jurisdiction in quashing the criminal
      proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The
      impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is
      quashed and set aside to the extent quashing and setting aside
      the criminal proceedings under Section 406. The proceedings
      before the trial court are ordered to be restored to file. [Para 7.1,
E     8][784-C]
            Odisha v. Pratima Mohanty (2021) SCC Online SC
            1222; CBI v. Thommandru (2021) SCC Online SC 923;
            Rajeev Kourav v. Baisahab (2020) 3 SCC 317;
            Neeharika Infrastructure v. Maharashtra (2021) SCC
F
            Online SC 315 – relied on.
            Ch. Bhajan Lal v. State of Haryana (1992) 1 Suppl.
            SCC 335 : [1990] 3 Suppl. SCR 259; Indian Oil
            Corporation v. N.E.P.C. India Ltd. and Others (2006) 6
G           SCC 736 : [2006] 3 Suppl. SCR 704; Jetking Infotrain
            Ltd. v. State of U.P. (2015) 11 SCC 730 : [2006] 3 Suppl.
            SCR 704; Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor (2013) 3
            SCC 330 : [2013] 3 SCR 52; Divine Retreat v. Kerala
            (2008) 3 SCC 542 : [2008] 4 SCR 701 – referred to.

H
 STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. v. AKHIL SHARDA &                       775
                      ORS.

      2. The High Court delivered the impugned judgment and            A
order after a period of six months after the matter was reserved
for judgment. Though the judgment and order passed by the High
Court may not be set aside on the said ground only, however it is
always advisable that the High Court delivers the judgment at
the earliest after the arguments are concluded and the judgment        B
is reserved. [Para 6.2][781-G-H; 782-A]
      Anil Rai v. State of Bihar (2001) 7 SCC 318 : [2001] 1
      Suppl. SCR 298; Bhagwandas Fatechand Daswani and
      Ors. v. HPA International and Ors. (2000) 2 SCC 13 :
      [2000] 1 SCR 254 – referred to.                                  C
                      Case Law Reference
[2013] 3 SCR 52                 referred to           Para 4.10
[2008] 4 SCR 701                referred to           Para 4.10
[2001] 1 Suppl. SCR 298         referred to           Para 4.11        D
[1990] 3 Suppl. SCR 259         referred to           Para 5.1
[2006] 3 Suppl. SCR 704         referred to           Para 5.2
[2006] 3 Suppl. SCR 704         referred to           Para 5.2
[2000] 1 SCR 254                referred to           Para 6.2         E

(2020) 3 SCC 317                relied on             Para 7.1
(2018) 6 SCC 110                relied on             Para 7.3
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No.840 of 2022.                                                        F

      From the Judgment and Order dated 06.03.2020 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in U/S 482/378/
407 No.2005 of 2019.
      With                                                             G
      Criminal Appeal No.841 of 2022
     Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG, Sharan Thakur, AAG, Dr. Abhishek
Manu Singhvi, Ranjeet Kumar, Sidharth Dave, Sr. Advs., Adarsh
Upadhyay, Siddharth Thakur, Ketan Paul, Pranjal Sharma, Bishwendra
                                                                       H
776              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2022] 6 S.C.R.


A     Singh, Ms. Shreya Jain, Gaurav Mehrotra, Nadeem Murtaza, Talha Abdul
      Rahman, Amit Bhandari, M. Shaz Khan, Harsh Vardhan Kediya, Ajay
      Bhargava, Ms. Vanita Bhargava, Karan Gupta, Ms. Soumya Chaturvedi
      for M/s Khaitan & Co., Advs. for the appearing parties.
               The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
               M. R. SHAH, J.
             1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
      and order dated 06.03.2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
      Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in a Case under Sections
      482/378/407 No.2005 of 2019 by which the High Court in exercise of
C
      powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has quashed the criminal proceedings
      arising out of FIR bearing Case Crime No.260 of 2018 lodged under
      Section 406, registered at PS – Husainganj, District – Lucknow, the
      State of U.P. as well as the original informant have preferred the present
      appeals.
D              2. The facts leading to the present appeals in a nutshell are as
      under:
              For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as per the
      cause title in Criminal Appeal No.840 of 2022 filed by the State of U.P.
      That the respondent no.4 herein M/s. United Breweries Limited is engaged
E     in manufacture of sale of beer which is regulated and governed by the
      Excise Act and other relevant clause of the State. Respondent No.5 –
      M/s Beehive Alcoveb is the licenced Firm having F.L. 2B licence,
      engaged in the business of beer etc. by purchasing the goods from the
      company, Respondent No.5 - Sanjeet Jaiwal – original informant of FIR
F     No.260 of 2018, Manager of the company – M/s Beehive Alcoweb. On
      07.09.2018 at 7.56 p.m. respondent no.5 sent a demand order at 7.56
      p.m. and on 11.09.2018 through e-mail for delivery of three trucks of
      beer to respondent No.4 – M/s United Breweries Limited and transferred
      a total sum of Rs.92,98,902/- to deliver two trucks in Lucknow and one
      in Varanasi. The Respondent no.4 directed its transporter SICAL
G     Logistics Limited Company to arrange a vehicle and deliver goods to
      Respondent no.5/the informant. That in furtherance of the same,
      M/s. SICAL Logistics Limited Company contacted another transport
      company, who in turn, hired two trucks vide truck registration numbers
      UP-32HN/3209 and UP-32FN/8048 for delivery of consignment of
H     respondent no.5/informant to Lucknow after obtaining transfer permit
 STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. v. AKHIL SHARDA &                           777
                ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

FL-36 from Excise Department. The trucks were enabled with GPS             A
systems as maintained by the Excise Department Track and Trace policy.
       2.1 The consignment of beer was dispatched on 11.09.2018
through the aforesaid two trucks. The GPS devices of both the trucks
lost contact with GPS tracking agency on 13.09.2018 after 11.41 pm.
On 13.09.2018 at about 16.40 hrs. when the transporter contacted through   B
his mobile phone to driver Mukesh on his mobile phone, he was informed
that the vehicles were standing near Junabganj, Lucknow at Chauhan
Dhaba (outer area of Lucknow) due to “no entry”. It appears that
thereafter neither the tracer could be contacted nor the vehicles could
be traced. With no positive response from the supplier, respondent no.1
and the goods not being delivered though full payment was made and         C
the goods being missing midway, respondent no.5 lodged the present
FIR bearing Case Crime No.260 of 2018 for the offence under Sections
406 & 420 IPC. In the meantime, the Manager of M/s SICAL Logistic
also lodged a separate FIR bearing Case Crime No.390 of 2018 under
Sections 420 & 406 IPC PS Badalpur, Gautam Budha Nagar against             D
two truck drivers and one unknown person. After the conclusion of the
investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the charge-sheet against
respondent no.5 in Case Crime No.26 of 2018 dated 10.02.2018 and
thereafter the learned Magistrate passed the summoning order dated
13.02.2019. Even subsequently the Investigating Officer PS Badalpur
has also filed the charge-sheet in the case arising out of Case Crime      E
No.227 of 2019 PS – Banthra, District Lucknow (Old No.390 of 2018).
Thereafter goods were delivered to the original informant. Also,
respondent no.1 to respondent no.4 herein, accused in Criminal Case
No.5694 of 2019 (arising out of FIR No.260 of 2018) approached the
High Court by way of an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. being        F
Case Crime No.2005 of 2019 seeking the following main reliefs:
      “(i) set aside the impugned summoning order dated 13.02.2019
      passed in Criminal Case No. 5694/2019, Case Crime No. 0260/
      2018, under Section 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., Police
      Station-Husainganj, district Lucknow.                                G
      (ii) set aside the impugned charge sheet dated 10.02.2019, filed
      by the Investigating Officer in Case Crime No. 0260/2018, under
      Section 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station-
      Husainganj, District- Lucknow.
                                                                           H
778            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 6 S.C.R.


A           (iii) set aside the entire proceedings of the Case Crime No. 0260/
            2018, under Section 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., Police
            Station- Husainganj, District- Lucknow.”
             2.2 By the impugned judgment and order the High Court in exercise
      of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has quashed the entire criminal
B     proceedings including the charge-sheet and the summoning order arising
      out of Criminal Case No. 5694 of 2019 (arising out of Case Crime No.
      260 of 2018 PS – Husainganj, District – Lucknow).
            2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
      and order passed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings
C     and the summoning order passed by the learned Trial Court in Criminal
      Case No.5694 of 2019 (arising out of Case Crime No.260 of 2018 PS –
      Husainganj, District – Lucknow), the State as well as the original
      informant have preferred the present appeals.
            3. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned ASG has appeared on behalf of
D     the appellant - State of UP and Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned
      Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of the original informant. Shri
      Ranjeet Kumar, learned Senior Advocate and Shri Sidharth Dave, learned
      Senior Advocate have appeared on behalf of the original accused.
            4. Ms. Bhati, learned ASG and Dr. Singhvi, learned Senior
E
      Advocate appearing on behalf of the original informant have vehemently
      submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case the High Court
      has committed a grave/serious error in quashing the entire criminal
      proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

F            4.1 It is submitted on behalf of the State as well as the original
      informant that while passing the impugned judgment and order while
      quashing the criminal proceedings arising out of Case Crime No.260 of
      2018 the High Court has not properly appreciated and/or considered the
      larger conspiracy.

G           4.2 It is submitted that the High Court has not appreciated and/or
      considered the fact that both the FIRs being Case Crime Nos. 260 of
      2018 and 227 of 2019 are interconnected and cannot be separated. It is
      submitted that the High Court ought not to have set aside the criminal
      proceedings arising out of one FIR being Case Crime No.260 of 2018.
H
  STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. v. AKHIL SHARDA &                            779
                 ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

       4.3 It is submitted that the High Court has failed to note and/or     A
appreciate the allegations in the FIR being FIR No.260 of 2018 which
were relating to disappearances of trucks loaded with beer from highways
in Uttar Pradesh which involve allegations of forging data and uploading
incorrect data against the Respondent-Accused.
       4.4 It is further submitted that by passing the impugned judgment     B
and order the High Court has curtailed and narrowed the scope of the
investigation.
       4.5 It is submitted that even the High Court agrees that the
allegations are serious and require investigation. However, without a
further prayer in that regard and at the instance of the accused, the High   C
Court has transferred the investigation to CB-CID to investigate the
FIR being FIR No.227 of 2019 lodged by the accused themselves.
      4.6 It is further submitted that while passing the impugned judgment
and order and quashing the criminal proceedings the High Court has not
                                                                             D
properly appreciated and considered various aspects of the case and the
complicity of the accused have not been considered.
      4.7 It is submitted that two whole trucks loaded with beer went
missing and the beer bottles was not found. There was no recovery or
seizure of the goods concerned. It had come during investigation that
                                                                             E
there were other such instances of disappearance of trucks loaded with
beer bottles. It is submitted that there is a syndicate operating with the
connivance of the accused persons.
       4.8 It is submitted that the manner in which the trucks loaded with
beer bottles went missing and the modus operandi adopted, in such a          F
serious matter but the High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings;
that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction while exercising the
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
      4.9 It is submitted that while quashing the criminal proceedings in
exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the High Court has              G
conducted a mini trial which as such is not permissible while exercising
the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
      4.10 Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective
appellants have heavily relied upon the following decisions of this Court
                                                                             H
780            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 6 S.C.R.


A     in support of their above submissions and the prayer to quash and set
      aside the impugned judgment and order.
            (i) Odisha vs. Pratima Mohanty, 2021 SCC Online SC 1222 [paras
                14, 15, 16, 18 & 22]
            (ii) CBI vs. Thommandru, 2021 SCC Online SC 923
B
            (iii) Rajeev Kourav vs. Baisahab, (2020) 3 SCC 317
            (iv) Neeharika Infrastructure vs. Maharashtra, 2021 SCC Online
                 SC 315
            (v) Rajiv Thapar vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330.
C
            (vi) Divine Retreat vs. Kerala, (2008) 3 SCC 542.
             4.11 It is further submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf
      of the appellants that in the present case the High Court delivered the
      judgment after a period of six months from the date it was reserved for
D     judgment. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order passed by the
      High Court deserves to be quashed and set aside. Reliance is placed in
      the decision of this Court in the case of Anil Rai vs. State of Bihar,
      (2001) 7 SCC 318.
             Making the above submissions and relying upon the above decisions
E     it is prayed to allow the present appeals and quash and set aside the
      impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court quashing and
      setting aside the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR bearing Case
      Crime No. 260 of 2018 lodged under Section 406, registered at PS –
      Husainganj, District – Lucknow.
F          5. Both these appeals are vehemently opposed by Shri Ranjeet
      Kumar, learned Senior Advocate and Shri Sidhartha Dave, learned Senior
      Advocate appearing on behalf of the respective accused.
            5.1 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original accused
      have vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the
G
      case and after having satisfied that the ingredients of Sections 406, 420
      IPC are not made out and the case falls within the parameters laid down
      by this Hon’ble Court in the case of Ch. Bhajan Lal vs. State of
      Haryana 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 which are required to be considered
      while quashing the criminal proceedings, the Hon’ble High Court has
H
  STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. v. AKHIL SHARDA &                                 781
                 ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

not committed any error in quashing and setting aside the criminal                A
proceedings.
        5.2 It is submitted that as such the respondents herein - original
accused are not at all in anyway responsible for the missing of the trucks
loaded with beer after the same were dispatched from their company.
It is submitted that in fact the respondents – original accused delivered         B
the goods to the transporter namely SICAL Logistic and in turn hired
two trucks. It is submitted that it was the SICAL Logistic who arranged
the vehicles to deliver goods to the informant. It is submitted that thereafter
the goods have been delivered. It is also found by the High Court that
there was no loss caused to the Excise Department. It is submitted that           C
the main grievance/dispute by the informant was with respect to the
rebate and therefore with a mala fide intention, the FIR was lodged.
That so far as the rebate is concerned, no allegation was made in the
FIR. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case the High
Court has not committed any error in quashing and setting aside the               D
criminal proceedings, as it was nothing but an abuse of process of law.
Relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Ch. Bhajan Lal
(supra); Indian Oil Corporation vs. N.E.P.C. India Ltd. and others-
reported in (2006) 6 SCC 736; Rajiv Thapar (supra) and Jetking
Infotrain Ltd. vs. State of U.P., (2015) 11 SCC 730., it is prayed to
dismiss the present appeals.                                                      E

       6. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at
length.
       6.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that by the impugned
judgment and order the High Court in exercise of powers under Section             F
482 Cr.P.C. has quashed the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR
bearing Case Crime No.260 of 2018 including the charge-sheet filed by
the Investigating Agency as well as the summoning order passed by the
learned Trial Court.
       6.2 At the outset, it is required to be noted that the High Court has      G
delivered the impugned judgment and order after a period of six months
after the matter was reserved for judgment. Though the judgment and
order passed by the High Court may not be set aside on the aforesaid
ground only, however it is always advisable that the High Court delivers
the judgment at the earliest after the arguments are concluded and the
                                                                                  H
782            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 6 S.C.R.


A     judgment is reserved. While emphasizing the need to pronounce the
      reserved judgment at the earliest and within a reasonable time this Court
      in the case of Anil Rai (supra) has observed and held in para 9 as
      under:
                    “9. It is true, that for the High Courts, no period for
B           pronouncement of judgment is contemplated either under the Civil
            Procedure Code or the Criminal Procedure Code, but as the
            pronouncement of the judgment is a part of the justice dispensation
            system, it has to be without delay. In a country like ours where
            people consider the Judges only second to God, efforts be made
            to strengthen that belief of the common man. Delay in disposal of
C           the cases facilitates the people to raise eyebrows, sometimes
            genuinely which, if not checked, may shake the confidence of the
            people in the judicial system. A time has come when the judiciary
            itself has to assert for preserving its stature, respect and regards
            for the attainment of the rule of law. For the fault of a few, the
D           glorious and glittering name of the judiciary cannot be permitted
            to be made ugly. It is the policy and purpose of law, to have speedy
            justice for which efforts are required to be made to come up to
            the expectation of the society of ensuring speedy, untainted and
            unpolluted justice.”
E            In the aforesaid decision this Court has also taken note of the
      observations made by this Court in another case in the case of
      Bhagwandas Fatechand Daswani and Ors. vs. HPA International
      and Ors., (2000) 2 SCC 13 that “a long delay in delivery of the judgment
      gives rise to unnecessary speculations in the minds of the parties in a
      case”.
F
             7. Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed
      by the High Court by which the High Court has set aside the criminal
      proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it appears
      that the High Court has virtually conducted a mini trial, which as such is
      not permissible at this stage and while deciding the application under
G     Section 482 Cr.P.C. 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 Cr.P.C. jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding
      the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court cannot get
      into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considered.
H
  STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. v. AKHIL SHARDA &                               783
                 ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

     (See Pratima (supra); Thom (supra); Rajiv (supra) and                      A
Niharika (supra).
       7.1 Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid
decisions to the facts of the case on hand and the manner in which the
High Court has allowed the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., we are
of the opinion that the impugned judgment and order passed by the High          B
Court quashing the criminal proceedings is unsustainable. The High Court
has exceeded in its jurisdiction in quashing the criminal proceedings in
exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
       7.2 It is also required to be noted that even the High Court itself
has opined that the allegations are very serious and it requires further        C
investigation and that is why the High Court has directed to conduct the
investigation by CB-CID with respect to the FIR No.227 of 2019.
However, while directing the CB-CID to conduct further investigation/
investigation, the High Court has restricted the scope of investigation.
The High Court has not appreciated and considered the fact that both
the FIRs namely FIR Nos.260 of 2018 and 227 of 2019 can be said to be           D
interconnected and the allegations of a larger conspiracy are required to
be investigated. It is alleged that the overall allegations are disappearance
of the trucks transporting the beer/contraband goods which are subject
to the rules and regulations of the Excise Department and Excise Law.
      7.3 The High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings by                E
observing that there was no loss to the Excise Department. However,
the High Court has not at all appreciated the allegations of the larger
conspiracy. The FIR need not be an encyclopedia (See Satpal vs.
Haryana, (2018) 6 SCC 110 Para 7).
       7.4 Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that the allegation of    F
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              G
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. We however refrain from making any
further observations as at this stage of proceedings as we are at the
stage of deciding the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. only and as
                                                                                H
784                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2022] 6 S.C.R.


A     the trial of both the cases have yet to take place. Therefore, we refrain
      from making any further observations which may affect the case of the
      either of the parties. Suffice it to say and mention that in the facts and
      circumstances of the case the High Court has committed a grave/serious
      error in quashing and setting aside the criminal proceedings arising out
      of Criminal Case No.5694 of 2019 and Case Crime No.260 of 2018 PS
B
      lodged under Section 406, registered at PS – Husainganj, District –
      Lucknow.
             8. In view of the above and for the reason stated above both
      these Appeals Succeed. The impugned judgment and order passed by
      the High Court is hereby quashed and set aside to the extent quashing
C     and setting aside the criminal proceedings Criminal Case No.5694 of
      2019 arising out of Case Crime No.260 of 2018 PS lodged under Section
      406, registered at PS – Husainganj, District – Lucknow.
            The proceedings before the learned Trial Court in Criminal Case
      No.5694 of 2019 are ordered to be restored to file. Present Appeals are
D     accordingly Allowed to the aforesaid extent.


      Nidhi Jain                                                  Appeals allowed.


E




F




G




H