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
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 Respondent Deepak Guglani position of Adhyaksha of the Grama Panchayat. This reasoning is
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