Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has on April 28, 2025 said a complaint can be quashed when the allegation, even when taken on its face value and accepted in its entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out the case alleged against the accused. 

The court emphasised what is required is the examination of the complaint as a whole, without examining the merits of the allegations; desisting from a detailed inquiry or meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint.

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran allowed a plea by Aaditya Khaitan alias Aditya Khaitan and others against the Jharkhand High Court order refusing to quash an FIR lodged under Section 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, against the appellant and the company for sub-letting a contract awarded to them by public sector NBCCL despite a restrictive clause. 

"We do not find any criminality arising from the allegations and prima facie, the allegations do not constitute any offence or make out any case against the accused persons," the bench said. 

The court opined that the High Court erred in not invoking the power under Section 482, CrPC in the present case. 

"The High Court having failed to invoke its power under Section 482, CrPC in the appeal, we invoke the same and quash the FIR on which no further proceedings will be taken," the bench said, allowing the appeal.

Brief Background

The present appeal was directed against the judgment of High Court refusing to invoke its powers under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 so as to quash FIR registered against the appellants, a company whose officers are the appellants. 

The Deputy General Manager of M/s National Building Construction Corporation Limited also filed a similar application in which the FIR against him was quashed. 

The crux of the allegations was that the first accused-company having obtained a contract from the NBCCL, sublet a portion of the work to the second respondent, which ran into trouble, was stalled, then revived, and again came to a standstill.

Since payments were due for the work carried out, the second respondent sought an intervention in a proceeding before the High Court, pending between the first accused company and NBCCL, which was declined on the ground that there was no back-to-back contract, the contract between NBCCL and the first accused clearly having provided a restrictive covenant against subletting the contract without the consent of NBCCL.

The second respondent who was the complainant alleged that this fact was suppressed and, hence, the accused were liable to be proceeded against for the offences punishable under Section 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Case Title: Aaditya Khaitan v. State of Jharkhand