Civil Remedies Don't Bar Prosecution: Supreme Court Revives FIR Over Alleged Fake Resignation Email in Arunachal Company Row

The FIR, lodged in April 2021 at P.S. Chongkham by the appellant's late father, alleged that he and the appellant controlled M/s. Chowkham Saw and Veneer Mills Pvt. Ltd. with 58% of the shares, and that respondent No. 2 and his son, respondent No. 3, sent an email from his account without his knowledge saying he had resigned (para 4). He was logged out of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs system when a resolution inducting the appellant as Director was to be uploaded (para 5). It invoked Sections 120-B, 418 and 423 IPC and Section 3(1)(p) of the SC & ST Act (para 2). On the accused's petition, the Gauhati High Court quashed the FIR on 25.09.2024 (paras 2, 6).

The High Court had held that disputes over a company's management must be investigated under Chapter XIV of the Companies Act, 2013, that the absence of a charge-sheet after more than three years suggested no evidence had been found, and that the FIR disclosed no cheating or conspiracy (para 6). The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not justified in nipping the prosecution in the bud (para 7). The FIR contained clear allegations of fabrication of documents, and whether they were right or wrong was for the investigating agency to find out (para 8). The view that such issues lie outside the police's domain was incorrect: criminal prosecution cannot be foreclosed merely because civil and other remedies exist (para 9). The presumption drawn from the delayed charge-sheet was conjectural, the shareholding was not germane, and the findings that no offence was disclosed were premature, an FIR not being an encyclopedia of the prosecution case (para 9). The High Court had quashed the case at a very premature stage on principles alien to quashing (para 10).