D.B. Ravikumar vs G. S. Suresh
- Neutral2025 INSC 514
- SCR[2025] 4 SCR 1409
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A High Court cannot quash an FIR solely on the ground that the complainant held a particular official position (here, Adhyaksha of a Grama Panchayat) or on the basis that such position motivated the prosecution, particularly where the High Court itself has acknowledged the presence of certain irregularities in the allegations; once an FIR is registered disclosing the commission of an offence, the allegations must be duly considered and the accused must be required to address them during investigation, rather than the court prematurely scuttling the investigation on such grounds.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
NON-REPORTABLE 2025 INSC 514 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)
VERSUS
G.S. SURESH & ANR. ..... RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
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 judgment 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 Signature Not Verified
Respondent Digitally signed by No. 1, G.S. Suresh, primarily because he held the Deepak Guglani Date: 2025.04.19 17:35:19 IST
position of Adhyaksha of the Grama Panchayat. This reasoning is Reason: 1 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.
2
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free