Pankaj Kapoor vs. State Of Hp And Another

Held

The Court held that it is impermissible to go into the correctness or otherwise of the allegations in the FIR or police statements when exercising inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings. The Court must assume the allegations in the FIR to be true. While the petitioner raised a point about the differing *mens rea* for Sections 285 and 427 IPC, the Court found it unnecessary to adjudicate this issue, as the matter was pending before the learned Trial Court. The primary concern was whether a cognizable offence was made out. The Court found that the offence punishable under Section 285 of the IPC was, *prima facie*, made out. Since a charge sheet had been filed, the matter was seized by the learned Trial Court, and it was for the Trial Court to appreciate the materials. Therefore, the petition to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, Pankaj Kaoor, filed a petition seeking to quash an FIR registered against him for offences under Sections 285 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The FIR was based on a complaint alleging that welding work carried out on a building by persons deployed by the owner of Kapoor Sanitary Store caused a spark, igniting materials stored in an adjacent shop, leading to a loss of lakhs of rupees. The petitioner contended that he was not the owner of Kapoor Sanitary Store, nor was he involved in the welding work, and his name was not mentioned in the FIR or police statements. He argued that the allegations did not constitute a cognizable offence and the proceedings were an abuse of the court process. The State and the informant argued that the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence and that the petitioner's involvement was established during the investigation, with a charge sheet already filed before the Trial Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the allegations in the FIR, taken at face value, prima facie constitute an offence under Sections 285 and 427 of the IPC against the petitioner, warranting the quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, turning on Sections 285 and 427 of the IPC). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that he was not the owner of the sanitary store, nor was he involved in the welding work. He contended that the allegations did not disclose a cognizable offence and that the continuation of proceedings against him amounted to an abuse of the process of the court. He relied on the judgment in *Komaraswami vs State*. Respondents' arguments: The State argued that the allegations in the FIR clearly showed the petitioner's failure to ensure proper care during welding, leading to the fire, thus falling under Section 285 of the IPC. They contended that the Court should not conduct a mini-trial and that the charge sheet having been filed, the Trial Court should adjudicate the matter. The informant adopted the State's submissions and argued that the Trial Court should be left to adjudicate, and the Court should not exercise its inherent jurisdiction.