Full Text
Translation output
2025 INSC 514
SLP(Crl.) No. 14500/2024
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 14500 of 2024)
D.B. RAVIKUMAR ..... APPELLANT(S)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 14500 of 2024)
D.B. RAVIKUMAR ..... APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
G.S. SURESH & ANR. ..... RESPONDENT(S)
Leave granted.
Our attention is drawn to the allegations made in First
Information Report (FIR) No. 158/2021 dated 20.07.2021 registered
Leave granted.
Our attention is drawn to the allegations made in First
Information Report (FIR) No. 158/2021 dated 20.07.2021 registered
WITH
Police Station – Kanakapura Rural, Kanakapura Circle, District
– Ramanagara, Karnataka, for the offence(s) punishable under
Sections 420, 468, 465 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
We have also examined the reasoning given by the High Court while quashing the aforesaid FIR.
In our opinion, the impugned
– Ramanagara, Karnataka, for the offence(s) punishable under
Sections 420, 468, 465 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
We have also examined the reasoning given by the High Court while quashing the aforesaid FIR.
In our opinion, the impugned
ORDER
is unsustainable and should be set aside. The High Court could not have prematurely scuttled the entire investigation on the ground that the complainant/appellant, D.B. Ravikumar, sought to prosecute
Respondent No. 1, G.S. Suresh, primarily because he held the position of Adhyaksha of the Grama Panchayat. This reasoning is
Respondent No. 1, G.S. Suresh, primarily because he held the position of Adhyaksha of the Grama Panchayat. This reasoning is
SLP(Crl.) No. 14500/2024 untenable, particularly when the High Court itself acknowledged the presence of certain irregularities. Once the FIR is registered, the allegations made therein must be duly considered. Respondent no. 1, G.S. Suresh, is required to address these allegations during the course of the investigation. Therefore, as the FIR discloses the commission of an offence, the High Court ought not to have quashed it solely on the aforementioned ground.
The impugned judgment is accordingly set aside and the appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
We, however, clarify that the observations made in this order may not be read as observations and findings on the merits of the case or the allegations made in the FIR.
All pleas and contentions available to the parties, that is, the appellant as well as respondent no. 1, G.S. Suresh, are left open.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. .................CJI
(SANJIV KHANNA) ..................J.
(SANJAY KUMAR)
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 17, 2025.
The impugned judgment is accordingly set aside and the appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
We, however, clarify that the observations made in this order may not be read as observations and findings on the merits of the case or the allegations made in the FIR.
All pleas and contentions available to the parties, that is, the appellant as well as respondent no. 1, G.S. Suresh, are left open.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. .................CJI
(SANJIV KHANNA) ..................J.
(SANJAY KUMAR)
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 17, 2025.