Jaipur: In a significant ruling, the Rajasthan High Court has held that criminal proceedings cannot continue when the very foundation on which they were initiated has ceased to exist.
The Court ruled that if the judicial order giving rise to an FIR is subsequently set aside and the proceedings on which it is based no longer exist, the continuation of the FIR would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The Court quashed a CBI FIR registered against Ranjeet Singh and Sanjay Dixit under the Passports Act, 1967, and various provisions of the Indian Penal Code.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, allowing the petitions, held that the impugned FIR had lost its legal foundation after the judicial order directing the CBI investigation was set aside and the writ proceedings from which it originated were dismissed.
The dispute arose from allegations that Ranjeet Singh had obtained a passport based on an improperly issued character certificate by Sanjay Dixit. Acting on a writ petition filed by Prahlad Gurjar, a Single Bench of the High Court had directed the CBI to investigate the matter, leading to registration of the FIR.
Before the High Court, the petitioners argued that the order directing investigation had been passed without hearing them, as they had never been impleaded as parties to the writ petition. They pointed out that the Division Bench had subsequently set aside that order and directed that the matter be heard afresh after allowing them to participate.
The petitioners further stated that the writ petitioner never complied with the Division Bench’s directions to implead them despite repeated opportunities granted by the Court. As a result, the writ petition itself stood dismissed for non-compliance. Since the FIR owed its existence entirely to that writ petition and the order passed therein, they contended that there was no legal basis for allowing the criminal proceedings to continue.
The CBI opposed the petitions but did not dispute that the original order directing investigation had already been set aside or that the writ petition had been dismissed without being restored.
Accepting the petitioners’ submissions, the High Court observed that the FIR was entirely dependent upon the original judicial order directing investigation. Once that order was set aside and the writ proceedings themselves came to an end, the FIR lost the very foundation on which it rested.
The Court placed its reliance on the legal maxim: “sublato fundamento cadit opus“, meaning when the foundation is removed, the structure falls, and held that every consequential proceeding automatically collapses once its source or origin disappears.
“cessante ratione legis, cessat ipsa lex“, the Court further observed that when the reason for continuing a legal proceeding ceases to exist, the proceeding itself cannot survive.
The Court also clarified that it had not examined the truth or otherwise of the allegations contained in the FIR. The FIR was not quashed because the petitioners were found innocent, but because the legal basis on which it had been registered no longer existed.
Accordingly, the High Court quashed the CBI FIR and all consequential proceedings arising from it. However, it clarified that if the original writ petition is restored in accordance with law, the CBI would be at liberty to seek revival of the criminal proceedings.