REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.840 of 2022 
                                                                
State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.                 ...Appellants 
Versus  
Akhil Sharda & Ors.                           ...Respondents
With 
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.841 OF 2022
Sanjeet Jaiswal     …Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. …Respondents
J U D G M E N T 
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment   and   order   dated   06.03.2020   passed   by   the   High
1

Court   of   Judicature   at   Allahabad,   Lucknow   Bench,   Lucknow
in   a   Case   under   Sections   482/378/407   No.2005   of   2019   by
which the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C.   has   quashed   the   criminal   proceedings   arising   out   of
FIR bearing Case Crime No.260 of 2018 lodged under Section
406,   registered   at   PS   –   Husainganj,   District   –   Lucknow,   the
State   of   U.P.  as   well   as   the   original   informant   have   preferred
the present appeals.
2. The facts leading to the present appeals in a nutshell are
as under:
For   the   sake   of   convenience,   the   parties   are   referred   as
per the cause title in Criminal Appeal No.840 of 2022 filed by
the   State   of   U.P.     That   the   respondent   no.4   herein   M/s.
United Breweries Limited is engaged in manufacture of sale of
beer   which   is   regulated   and   governed   by   the   Excise   Act   and
other   relevant   clause   of   the   State.     Respondent   No.5   –   M/s
Beehive   Alcoveb   is   the   licenced   Firm   having   F.L.   2B   licence,
engaged in the business of beer etc. by purchasing the goods
from   the   company,   Respondent   No.5   ­   Sanjeet   Jaiwal   –
original   informant   of   FIR   No.260   of   2018,   Manager   of   the
2

company – M/s Beehive Alcoweb.  On 07.09.2018 at 7.56 p.m.
respondent   no.5   sent   a   demand   order   at   7.56   p.m.   and   on
11.09.2018 through e­mail for delivery of three trucks of beer
to   respondent   No.4   –   M/s   United   Breweries   Limited   and
transferred   a   total   sum   of   Rs.92,98,902/­   to   deliver   two
trucks   in   Lucknow   and   one   in   Varanasi.     The   Respondent
no.4 directed its transporter SICAL Logistics Limited Company
to arrange a vehicle and deliver goods to Respondent no.5/the
informant.     That   in   furtherance   of   the   same,   M/s.   SICAL
Logistics   Limited   Company   contacted   another   transport
company,   who   in   turn,   hired   two   trucks   vide   truck
registration   numbers   UP­32HN/3209   and   UP­32FN/8048   for
delivery   of   consignment   of   respondent   no.5/informant   to
Lucknow   after   obtaining   transfer   permit   FL­36   from   Excise
Department.     The   trucks   were   enabled   with   GPS   systems   as
maintained by the Excise Department Track and Trace policy.
2.1 The   consignment   of  beer   was  dispatched  on   11.09.2018
through   the   aforesaid   two   trucks.     The   GPS   devices   of   both
the   trucks   lost   contact   with   GPS   tracking   agency   on
13.09.2018   after   11.41   pm.     On   13.09.2018   at   about   16.40
3

hrs. when the transporter contacted through his mobile phone
to   driver  Mukesh  on   his  mobile  phone,  he  was  informed  that
the   vehicles   were   standing   near   Junabganj,   Lucknow   at
Chauhan Dhaba (outer area of Lucknow) due to “no entry”.  It
appears   that   thereafter   neither   the   tracer   could   be   contacted
nor   the   vehicles   could   be   traced.     With   no   positive   response
from   the   supplier,   respondent   no.1   and   the   goods   not   being
delivered though full payment was made and the goods being
missing   midway,   respondent   no.5   lodged   the   present   FIR
bearing   Case   Crime   No.260   of   2018   for   the   offence   under
Sections   406   &   420   IPC.     In   the   meantime,   the   Manager   of
M/s   SICAL   Logistic   also   lodged   a   separate   FIR   bearing   Case
Crime   No.390   of   2018   under   Sections   420   &   406   IPC   PS
Badalpur,   Gautam   Budha   Nagar   against   two   truck   drivers
and   one   unknown   person.     After   the   conclusion   of   the
investigation,   the   Investigating   Officer   filed   the   charge­sheet
against   respondent   no.5   in   Case   Crime   No.26   of   2018   dated
10.02.2018   and   thereafter   the   learned   Magistrate   passed   the
summoning   order   dated   13.02.2019.     Even   subsequently   the
Investigating   Officer   PS   Badalpur   has   also   filed   the   charge­
sheet in the case arising out of Case Crime No.227 of 2019 PS
4

– Banthra, District Lucknow (Old No.390 of 2018).  Thereafter
goods   were   delivered   to   the   original   informant.   Also,
respondent   no.1   to   respondent   no.4   herein,   accused   in
Criminal   Case   No.5694   of   2019   (arising   out   of   FIR   No.260   of
2018)   approached   the   High   Court   by   way   of   an   application
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. being Case Crime No.2005 of 2019
seeking the following main reliefs:
“(i)   set   aside   the   impugned   summoning   order
dated   13.02.2019   passed   in   Criminal   Case   No.
5694/2019,   Case   Crime   No.   0260/2018,   under
Section   406,   420,   467,   468,   471,   120­B   I.P.C.,
Police Station­Husainganj, district Lucknow. 
(ii).   set   aside   the   impugned   charge   sheet   dated
10.02.2019,   filed   by   the   Investigating   Officer   in
Case Crime No. 0260/2018, under Section 406,
420, 467, 468, 471, 120­B I.P.C., Police Station­
Husainganj, District­ Lucknow. 
(iii)   set  aside   the  entire  proceedings  of  the   Case
Crime   No.  0260/2018,   under  Section   406,   420,
467,   468,   471,   120­B   I.P.C.,   Police   Station­
Husainganj, District­ Lucknow.” 
2.2 By the impugned judgment and order the High Court in
exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has quashed the
entire   criminal   proceedings   including   the   charge­sheet   and
the summoning order arising out of Criminal Case No.5694 of
5

2019   (arising   out   of   Case   Crime   No.260   of   2018   PS   –
Husainganj, District – Lucknow).
2.3 Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court   quashing   the
criminal proceedings and the summoning order passed by the
learned Trial Court in Criminal Case No.5694 of 2019 (arising
out of Case Crime No.260 of 2018 PS – Husainganj, District –
Lucknow),   the   State   as   well   as   the   original   informant   have
preferred the present appeals.
3. Ms.   Aishwarya   Bhati,   learned   ASG   has   appeared   on
behalf   of   the   appellant   ­   State   of   UP   and   Dr.   Abhishek   Manu
Singhvi,   learned   Senior   Advocate   has   appeared   on   behalf   of
the   original   informant.     Shri   Ranjeet   Kumar,   learned   Senior
Advocate   and   Shri   Sidharth   Dave,   learned   Senior   Advocate
have appeared on behalf of the original accused.
4. Ms.   Bhati,   learned   ASG   and   Dr.   Singhvi,   learned   Senior
Advocate   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   original   informant   have
vehemently   submitted   that   in   the   facts   and   circumstances   of
6

the   case  the  High  Court  has  committed a  grave/serious  error
in   quashing   the   entire   criminal   proceedings   in   exercise   of
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
4.1 It   is   submitted   on   behalf   of   the   State   as   well   as   the
original informant  that  while passing  the  impugned judgment
and order while quashing the criminal proceedings arising out
of Case Crime No.260 of 2018 the High Court has not properly
appreciated and/or considered the larger conspiracy.
4.2 It   is   submitted   that   the   High   Court   has   not   appreciated
and/or   considered   the   fact   that   both   the   FIRs   being   Case
Crime   Nos.260   of   2018   and   227   of   2019   are   interconnected
and cannot be separated.   It is submitted that the High Court
ought   not   to   have   set   aside   the   criminal   proceedings   arising
out of one FIR being Case Crime No.260 of 2018.
4.3 It   is   submitted   that   the   High   Court   has   failed   to   note
and/or appreciate the allegations in the FIR being FIR No.260
of   2018   which   were   relating   to   dis appearances   of   trucks
loaded   with   beer   from   highways   in   Uttar   Pradesh   which
7

involve allegations of forging data and uploading incorrect data
against the Respondent ­Accused.
4.4 It   is   further   submitted   that   by   passing   the   impugned
judgment   and   order   the   High   Court   has   curtailed   and
narrowed the scope of the investigation. 
4.5 It is submitted that  even the  High  Court agrees that  the
allegations   are   serious   and   require   investigation.     However,
without a further prayer in that regard and at the instance of
the  accused, the High Court has transferred the  investigation
to   CB­CID   to   investigate   the   FIR   being   FIR   No.227   of   2019
lodged by the accused themselves.
4.6 It   is   further   submitted   that   while   passing   the   impugned
judgment   and   order   and   quashing   the   criminal   proceedings
the   High   Court   has   not   properly   appreciated   and   considered
various aspects of  the case and  the complicity  of the accused
have not been considered.  
8

4.7 It   is   submitted   that   two   whole   trucks   loaded   with   beer
went  missing  and the beer  bottles was not found.    There was
no   recovery   or   seizure   of   the   goods   concerned.   It   had   come
during   investigation   that   there   were   other   such   instances   of
disappearance   of   trucks   loaded   with   beer   bottles.     It   is
submitted   that   there   is   a   syndicate   operating   with   the
connivance of the accused persons. 
 4.8 It   is   submitted   that   the   manner   in   which   the   trucks
loaded with beer bottles went missing and the modus operandi
adopted,   in   such   a   serious   matter   but   the   High   Court   has
quashed   the   criminal   proceedings;   that   the   High   Court   has
exceeded   its   jurisdiction   while   exercising   the   powers   under
Section 482 Cr.P.C.
4.9 It   is   submitted   that   while   quashing   the   criminal
proceedings   in   exercise   of   powers   under   Section   482   Cr.P.C.
the   High   Court   has   conducted   a   mini   trial   which   as   such   is
not permissible while exercising the powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C.
9

4.10 Learned   Counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   respective
appellants   have   heavily   relied   upon   the   following   decisions   of
this   Court   in   support   of   their   above   submissions   and   the
prayer   to   quash   and   set   aside   the   impugned   judgment   and
order.
(i) Odisha   vs.   Pratima   Mohanty,   2021   SCC   Online   SC
1222 [paras 14, 15, 16, 18 & 22]
(ii) CBI vs. Thommandru, 2021 SCC Online SC 923
(iii) Rajeev Kourav vs. Baisahab, (2020) 3 SCC 317
(iv) Neeharika   Infrastructure   vs.   Maharashtra,   2021
SCC Online SC 315
(v) Rajiv   Thapar   vs.   Madan   Lal   Kapoor,   (2013)   3   SCC
330.
(vi) Divine Retreat vs. Kerala, (2008) 3 SCC 542.
4.11 It   is   further   submitted   by   learned   counsel   appearing   on
behalf   of   the   appellants   that   in   the   present   case   the   High
Court delivered the judgment after a period of six months from
the   date   it   was   reserved   for   judgment.     Therefore,   the
impugned   judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court
deserves   to   be   quashed   and   set   aside.     Reliance   is   placed   in
the decision of this Court in the case of   Anil Rai vs. State of
Bihar, (2001) 7 SCC 318 .
10

Making   the   above   submissions   and   relying   upon   the
above  decisions  it  is  prayed to   allow  the   present  appeals and
quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed
by   the   High   Court   quashing   and   setting   aside   the   criminal
proceedings   arising   out   of   FIR   bearing   Case   Crime   No.260   of
2018   lodged   under   Section   406,   registered   at   PS   –
Husainganj, District – Lucknow.
5. Both   these   appeals   are   vehemently   opposed   by   Shri
Ranjeet   Kumar,   learned   Senior   Advocate   and   Shri   Sidhartha
Dave,   learned   Senior   Advocate   appearing   on   behalf   of   the
respective accused.
5.1 Learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   original
accused   have   vehemently   submitted   that   in   the   facts   and
circumstances   of   the   case   and   after   having   satisfied   that   the
ingredients of Sections 406, 420 IPC are not made out and the
case   falls   within   the   parameters   laid   down   by   this   Hon’ble
Court   in   the   case   of   Ch.   Bhajan   Lal   vs.   State   of   Haryana
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335   which are required to be considered
while   quashing   the   criminal   proceedings,   the   Hon’ble   High
11

Court   has   not   committed   any   error   in   quashing   and   setting
aside the criminal proceedings.
5.2 It   is   submitted   that   as   such   the   respondents   herein   ­
original   accused   are   not   at   all   in   anyway   responsible   for   the
missing   of   the   trucks   loaded   with   beer   after   the   same   were
dispatched   from   their   company.     It   is   submitted   that   in   fact
the respondents – original accused delivered the goods to the
transporter   namely   SICAL   Logistic   and   in   turn   hired   two
trucks.     It   is   submitted   that   it   was   the   SICAL   Logistic   who
arranged  the   vehicles  to  deliver  goods  to  the  informant.     It is
submitted that thereafter the goods have been delivered.   It is
also found by the High Court that there was no loss caused to
the   Excise   Department.     It   is   submitted   that   the   main
grievance/dispute   by   the   informant   was   with   respect   to   the
rebate   and   therefore   with   a   mala   fide   intention,   the   FIR   was
lodged.   That   so  far  as  the  rebate  is  concerned,  no   allegation
was   made   in   the   FIR.     Therefore,   in   the   facts   and
circumstances  of the  case the  High  Court has  not committed
any   error   in   quashing   and   setting   aside   the   criminal
proceedings, as it was nothing but an abuse of process of law.
12

Relying   upon   the   decision   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of   Ch.
Bhajan   Lal   (supra);   Indian   Oil   Corporation   vs.   N.E.P.C.
India Ltd. and others­   reported in   (2006) 6 SCC 736; Rajiv
Thapar (supra)  and  Jetking Infotrain Ltd. vs. State of U.P.,
(2015)   11   SCC   730.,   it   is   prayed   to   dismiss   the   present
appeals.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties
at length.
6.1 At   the   outset,   it   is   required   to   be   noted   that   by   the
impugned   judgment   and   order   the   High   Court   in   exercise   of
powers   under   Section   482   Cr.P.C.   has   quashed   the   criminal
proceedings   arising   out   of   FIR   bearing   Case   Crime   No.260   of
2018   including   the   charge­sheet   filed   by   the   Investigating
Agency as well as the summoning order passed by the learned
Trial Court.
6.2 At   the   outset,   it   is   required   to   be   noted   that   the   High
Court has delivered the impugned judgment and order after a
period   of   six   months   after   the   matter   was   reserved   for
13

judgment. Though the judgment and order passed by the High
Court   may   not   be   set   aside   on   the   aforesaid   ground   only,
however it is always advisable that the High Court delivers the
judgment   at   the   earliest   after   the   arguments   are   concluded
and the judgment is reserved. While emphasizing the need to
pronounce the reserved judgment at the earliest and within a
reasonable time this Court in the case of  Anil Rai (supra)  has
observed and held in para 9 as under:
“9.   It   is   true,   that   for   the   High   Courts,   no
period   for   pronouncement   of   judgment   is
contemplated either under the Civil Procedure Code
or   the   Criminal   Procedure   Code,   but   as   the
pronouncement   of   the   judgment   is   a   part   of   the
justice   dispensation   system,   it   has   to   be   without
delay. In a country like ours where people consider
the   Judges   only   second   to   God,   efforts   be   made   to
strengthen that belief of the common man. Delay in
disposal   of   the   cases   facilitates   the   people   to   raise
eyebrows,   sometimes   genuinely   which,   if   not
checked, may shake the confidence of the people in
the   judicial   system.   A   time   has   come   when   the
judiciary   itself   has   to   assert   for   preserving   its
stature,   respect   and   regards   for   the   attainment   of
the   rule   of   law.   For   the   fault   of   a   few,   the   glorious
and   glittering   name   of   the   judiciary   cannot   be
permitted   to   be   made   ugly.   It   is   the   policy   and
purpose   of   law,   to   have   speedy   justice   for   which
efforts   are   required   to   be   made   to   come   up   to   the
expectation   of   the   society   of   ensuring   speedy,
untainted and unpolluted justice .”
In  the  aforesaid  decision  this  Court  has  also  taken   note
of the observations made by this Court in another case in the
14

case   of   Bhagwandas   Fatechand   Daswani   and   Ors.   vs.   HPA
International   and   Ors.,   (2000)   2   SCC   13   that   “a  long   delay
in   delivery   of   the   judgment   gives   rise   to   unnecessary
speculations in the minds of the parties in a case”.
7. Having  gone  through   the  impugned  judgment   and  order
passed   by   the   High   Court   by   which   the   High   Court   has   set
aside   the   criminal   proceedings   in   exercise   of   powers   under
Section   482   Cr.P.C.,   it   appears   that   the   High   Court   has
virtually   conducted   a   mini   trial,   which   as   such   is   not
permissible   at   this   stage   and   while   deciding   the   application
under   Section   482   Cr.P.C.     As   observed   and   held   by   this
Court in a catena of decisions no mini trial can be conducted
by   the   High   Court   in   exercise   of   powers   under   Section   482
Cr.P.C.   jurisdiction   and   at   the   stage   of   deciding   the
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court cannot
get   into   appreciation   of   evidence   of   the   particular   case   being
considered.
(See   Pratima   (supra);   Thom   (supra);   Rajiv   (supra)   and
Niharika (supra).
15

7.1 Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid
decisions to the facts of the case on hand and the manner in
which  the  High   Court   has   allowed  the   petition   under  Section
482   Cr.P.C.,   we   are   of   the   opinion   that   the   impugned
judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court   quashing   the
criminal   proceedings   is   unsustainable.     The   High   Court   has
exceeded   in   its   jurisdiction   in   quashing   the   criminal
proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
7.2 It   is   also   required   to   be   noted   that   even   the   High   Court
itself   has   opined   that   the   allegations   are   very   serious   and   it
requires further investigation and that is why  the High Court
has   directed   to   conduct   the   investigation   by   CB­CID   with
respect   to   the   FIR   No.227   of   2019.     However,   while   directing
the CB­CID to conduct further investigation/investigation, the
High Court has restricted the scope of investigation.  The High
Court   has   not   appreciated   and   considered   the   fact   that   both
the FIRs namely FIR Nos.260 of 2018 and 227 of 2019 can be
said   to   be   interconnected   and   the   allegations   of   a   larger
conspiracy   are   required   to   be   investigated.     It   is   alleged   that
the   overall   allegations   are   disappearance   of   the   trucks
16

transporting  the   beer/contraband  goods  which  are  subject  to
the rules and regulations of the Excise Department and Excise
Law.  
7.3 The High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings by
observing   that   there   was   no   loss   to   the   Excise   Department.
However,   the   High   Court   has   not   at   all   appreciated   the
allegations   of   the   larger   conspiracy.     The   FIR  need   not   be  an
encyclopedia   (See   Satpal   vs.   Haryana,   (2018)   6   SCC   110
Para 7).
7.4 Even   otherwise,   it   is   required   to   be   noted   that   the
allegation   of   missing   of   two   trucks   was   the   beginning   of   the
investigation and when during the investigation it was alleged
that earlier also a number of trucks were missing transporting
contraband goods, the FIR should not have been restricted to
missing   of   the   two   trucks   only   and   return   of   on   the   goods
thereafter.   The High Court has not at all appreciated and/or
considered   the   allegation   of   the   larger   conspiracy   and   that
both   the   FIRs/criminal   cases   are   interconnected   and   part   of
the main conspiracy which is very serious if found to be true.
17

We   however   refrain   from   making   any   further   observations   as
at this stage of proceedings as we are at the stage of deciding
the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. only and as the trial
of both the cases have yet to take place.  Therefore, we refrain
from   making   any   further   observations   which   may   affect   the
case of the either of the parties.  Suffice it to say and mention
that in the facts and circumstances of the case the High Court
has  committed  a grave/serious error   in quashing  and setting
aside   the   criminal   proceedings   arising   out   of   Criminal   Case
No.5694   of   2019   and   Case   Crime   No.260   of   2018   PS   lodged
under   Section   406,   registered   at   PS   –   Husainganj,   District   –
Lucknow.
8. In view of the above and for the reason stated above both
these   Appeals   Succeed.     The   impugned   judgment   and   order
passed by the High Court is hereby quashed and set aside to
the   extent   quashing   and   setting   aside   the   criminal
proceedings   Criminal   Case   No.5694   of   2019   arising   out   of
Case   Crime   No.260   of   2018   PS   lodged   under   Section   406,
registered at PS – Husainganj, District – Lucknow.
18

The   proceedings   before   the   learned   Trial   Court   in
Criminal   Case   No.5694  of   2019  are  ordered   to   be   restored  to
file.   Present Appeals are accordingly Allowed to the aforesaid
extent.
…………………………………J.
                  (M. R. SHAH)
…………………………………J.
                                                 (B.V. NAGARATHNA)
New Delhi, 
July 11, 2022.
19