Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited, a company engaged in the manufacture and sale of passenger vehicles, was aggrieved by the refusal of the Allahabad High Court to quash a First Information Report (FIR) registered against them for offences under Sections 34, 471, 468, 467, 420, 419 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The FIR was lodged by the 3rd respondent, a purchaser of Audi cars, alleging that the company had installed cheat devices in vehicles to manipulate emission tests, thereby duping customers. The petitioner contended that the substratum of the complaint was sub judice before the Supreme Court in civil appeals arising from an order of the National Green Tribunal (NGT), which had already imposed a fine of Rs. 500 crores for environmental damage. Additionally, the petitioner argued that there was a long delay in lodging the complaint and that the complainant had purchased only 3 vehicles, not 7 as claimed. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court correctly refused to quash the FIR. The Court observed that the question of whether the complainant purchased 3 or 7 vehicles is a disputed question of fact that cannot be resolved in a quashing petition. Similarly, mere delay in lodging the complaint is not a ground to quash the FIR. Regarding the pendency of civil appeals, the Court held that the NGT order did not preclude criminal investigation, as the reliefs sought before the NGT were broad and general, not specific to individual purchasers. The Court emphasized that criminal and civil proceedings can coexist, and the police are entitled to investigate the allegations independently. The petition was dismissed, and the interim protection against arrest granted by the High Court was directed to continue until the submission of the police report under Section 173(2) CrPC.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Quashing of FIR - Section 482 CrPC - Delay and Disputed Facts - The High Court refused to quash the FIR on the ground that delay in lodging the complaint and the dispute regarding the number of vehicles purchased are questions of fact that cannot be adjudicated in a quashing petition - Held that the mere delay or disputed facts cannot be grounds to quash an FIR (Paras 18-19). B) Criminal Procedure Code - Quashing of FIR - Section 482 CrPC - Pendency of Civil Proceedings - The pendency of civil appeals before the Supreme Court arising from the NGT order does not bar the police from investigating the criminal complaint - Held that criminal and civil proceedings can coexist and the substratum of the civil case does not preclude criminal investigation (Paras 20-23).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in refusing to quash the FIR registered against the petitioner for offences under IPC, on the grounds that the substratum of the complaint is sub judice before this Court in civil appeals arising from the NGT order, and that there was delay and discrepancy in the number of vehicles purchased.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, holding that the High Court was justified in refusing to quash the FIR. The Court directed that the interim protection against arrest granted by the High Court shall continue until the submission of the police report under Section 173(2) CrPC.
Law Points
- FIR cannot be quashed on grounds of delay or disputed facts
- pendency of civil proceedings does not bar criminal investigation
- criminal and civil proceedings can coexist
- quashing of FIR is an exception not the rule
