Supreme Court of India
VASUDEVversusPARVINDER KUMAR & ORS.
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 928
- Decided
- 12 August 2008
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
A petition cannot be dismissed on the ground that an FIR has been cancelled unless a formal order cancelling the FIR is produced; if no such order exists, the matter must be reheard.
Summary
The appellant, Vasudev, filed a criminal miscellaneous application under Section 91 of the CrPC alleging that the father of respondents forged the mother’s signature to withdraw money from her bank account, leading to FIR No.61 dated 13‑03‑2002. The trial court disposed of the application with directions, and a subsequent application was also disposed in the same manner. The appellant challenged the High Court’s dismissal of his petition, which was based solely on the counsel’s statement that the FIR had been cancelled, arguing that no order effecting such cancellation had ever been produced. The Supreme Court held that a dismissal on the ground of FIR cancellation is untenable unless a formal cancellation order exists on record; in its absence, the High Court must rehear the matter. Consequently, the Court directed the State to produce any cancellation order within four weeks and quashed the High Court’s earlier orders dated 13‑01‑2006 and 28‑04‑2006. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
Issues considered
- Can a High Court dismiss a petition on the ground that an FIR has been cancelled without producing a formal order of cancellation?
- Does the absence of a cancellation order render the High Court’s dismissal invalid under Section 91 of the CrPC?
- What procedural steps are required when an FIR is purportedly cancelled in the context of a criminal miscellaneous application?
Legislation cited
Subjects
Section 91 CrPCFIR cancellationcriminal miscellaneous applicationprocedural lawHigh Court jurisdictionquashing orderappealjudicial review
Judgment
[2008] 12 S.C.R. 23
+ VASUDEV A
II.
PARVINDER KUMAR & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1263 of 2008)
AUGUST 12, 2008
B
(OR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
-1 SHARMA, JJ.)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; s.91:
Filing of petition by appellant alleging forgery commit- c
ted by respondents - Disposed of by trial Court with direc-
tions - Another application filed by appellant was dismissed
by trial Court - Challenge to - Dismissed by High Court in
view of submission made by counsel for the respondents that
FIR has been closed- Correctness of-Held: Incorrect- There D
must be some order canceling FIR but it has not been brought
...- on record - The State directed to furnish a copy of the order
before High Court - If no such order has been passed, dis-
posal of the petition on the ground that FIR has been can-
... celled, cannot be maintained and the High Court shall hear E
the matter afresh.
The appellant had filed an application before the Ju-
dicial Magistrate alleging that father of respondent nos.1
to 3 used to fraudulently withdraw money from the bank
account of their mother by forging her signature and FIR F
+ No.61 dated 13.3.2002 had been filed, and praying for or-
der in terms of Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Proce-
dure, 1973. The trial Court disposed of the application with
certain directions. Subsequently, another application was
filed by the appellant, which was disposed of in terms of G
the direction as given in the earlier order. Aggrieved by the
) order of the trial Court, appellants questioned the order
before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the peti-
tion. Hence the present appeal.
23 H
24 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.
' A Appellant contended that till date the order closing )r
the FIR has not been furnished even before this Court.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Since the petition filed by the appellant
B was rejected by the High Court on the basis of the state-
ment made by the counsel for the State and the accused
persons that the FIR has been cancelled, it was but natu- f-
rat that there should be some order in that regard. It is not
understood as. to why the same has not been brought on
c record as yet. If there is no such ord.er in existence, obvi-
ously the disposal of the petition filed by the appellant on
the ground that the FIR has been cancelled cannot be
maintained. (Para - 7) [26, F-G]
1.2 The counsel for the State is directed to place be-
D fore the High Court a copy of the order purporting to can-
eel FIR No.61. (Para - 8) [26,G-H]
1.3 If any such order has not been passed, the High
Court shall hear the matter afresh. Order of rejection by
--
order dated 13.1.2006 and order in Criminal Misc. Appli- ,....
E cation 22330/2006 dated 28.4.2006 stand quashed. (Para
- 9) [27,A]
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION : CriminalAppeal
No. 1263 of 2008
F From the final Judgment and Order dated 28.4.2006 of
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Crimi-
nal Misc. No. 29019-M of 2005
+
Nand Lal and K.L. Taneja for the Appellant.
G Kuldip Singh, R.K Pandey, T.P. Mishra, H.S. Sandhu and
i
Ajay Sharma for the Respondents.
~·
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by _
Dr.tARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
H
VASUDEV v. PARVINDER KUMAR & ORS. 25
[DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
+ 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a A
learned Single Judge ·of the Punjab and Haryana High Court,
dismissing the petition in Criminal Miscellaneous Application
No.22300 of 2006 filed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.29019-
M of 2005.
3. A brief reference to the factoal aspects would be nee- B
essary:
~
Appellant had filed Criminal Misc. Case No.29019-M/2005
questioning the correctness of the order passed by learned Sub
Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rajpura, in respect of FIR No.23/ c
25.1.2001 of PS City, Rajpura, relating to a gift deed purported
to have been fraudulently executed.
The appellant had filed the application alleging that
Lachman Dass father of respondent nos.1 to 3 used to fraudu-
lently withdraw amount from the bank account of their mother D
Kishni Bai by forging her signature and FIR No.61 dated
13.3.2002 had been filed. It appears that the prosecution had
filed application praying for order in terms of Section 91 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code'). Learned
SDJM disposed of the application with certain directions. The E
order dated 3.5.2004 was passed by learned SDJM, Rajpura.
Subsequently, another application was filed in terms of Section
91 Cr.P.C. which was disposed of by order dated 4.5.2005 point-
ing out that in view of earlier order, dated 3.5.2004 nothing further
was required to be done. The order was questioned before the F
Punjab and Hayana High Court. By order dated 13.1.2006, the
1"- High Court closed the matter with the following order:
"Learned counsel for the State and the accused submit
that FIR No.61 already stands cancelled and in any case,
the documents were available in Court, which could be G
examined in court earlier.
A
It is stated by the learned counsel for the State that the
State is no longer interested in taking documents from the
Court.
H
26 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.
A In view of the above, no ground is made out for interference ~
in the impugned order.
Petition is dismissed."
An application to recall the order was filed primarily on the
B ground that there was no order passed cancelling the FIR. The
petition had been disposed of on the basis of statement made
by learned counsel for the accused to the effect that FIR has ~ ~
been closed. Appellant submitted that no such order had been
passed. As noted above, High Court dismissed the petition
c 4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appel-
lant submitted that till now the so-called order closing the FIR
has not seen the light of the day. Even before this Court, the
same has not been produced.
5. It is also pointed out that had any such order been
D
passed, the informant was required to be notified so that pro-
test petition can be filed before the Court.
6. Learned counsel for the State and the accused persons
submitted that obvious object of the appellant is to drag the
E proceedings. It is, however, fairly conceded that the order di-
recting cancellation of the FIR has not been brought on record.
7. Since the petition filed by the appellant was rejected by
the High Court on the basis of the statement made by the learned
counsel for the State and the accused persdns that the FIR has
F been cancelled, it was but natural that there should be some
order in that regard. It is not understood as to why the same has ~
not been brought on record as yet. If there is no such order in ...
existence, obviously the disposal of the petition filed by the ap- .
pellant on.the ground that the FIR has been cancelled cannot \
G be maintained.
8. In the afore$aid circumstances, we direct the learned A
counsel for the State to place before the High Court a copy of f
the order purporting to cancel the FIR No.61 within a period of
four weeks from today.
H
VASUDEV v. PARVINDER KUMAR & ORS. 27
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
-t 9. If any such order has not been passed, the High Court A
shall hear the matter afresh. Order of rejection by order dated
13.1.2006 and order in Criminal Misc. Application 22330/2006
dated 28.4.2006 stand quashed. In case the aforesaid order is
placed before the High Court it shall direct the same to be placed
before the concerned lower Court for consideration. Needless B
to say the informant shall be granted liberty to take action as
provided in law.
10. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
S.K.S. Appeal disposed of. c
+
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Section 91 CrPC"Sign in to search