1. Appeal against High Court's interim order staying criminal proceedings and investigation in petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 659
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. Shah, B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.
Siddharth Mukesh Bhandari - Appellant
Versus
The State of Gujarat and Anr. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1044 of 2022
Siddharth Mukesh Bhandari - Appellant
Versus
The State of Gujarat and Anr. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1045 of 2022
Siddharth Mukesh Bhandari - Appellant
Versus
The State of Gujarat and Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1046 of 2022
Decided On : 02-08-2022
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Harshit S. Tolia, Adv. Mr. P. S. Sudheer, AOR Mr. Siddharth Ravi Kheskani, Adv. Mr. Rishi Maheshwari, Adv. Mr. Bharat Sood, Adv. Ms. Shruti Jose, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. K.M. Natraj, ASG Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Brijesh Limbachia, Adv. Ms. Anushree Prashit Kapadia, AOR Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Ankur Saigal, Adv. Mr. Anirudh Bhatia, Adv. Ms. Kamakshi Sehgal, Adv Ms. Ayushi Amod, Adv. Mr. Pranav Saigal, Adv. Ms. Ashita Chawala. Adv Mr. E. C. Agrawala, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Harshit S. Tolia, Adv. Mr. P. S. Sudheer, AOR Mr. Siddharth Ravi Kheskani, Adv. Mr. Rishi Maheshwari, Adv. Mr. Bharat Sood, Adv. Ms. Shruti Jose, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. K.M. Natraj, ASG Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Brijesh Limbachia, Adv. Ms. Anushree Prashit Kapadia, AOR Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Ankur Saigal, Adv. Mr. Anirudh Bhatia, Adv. Ms. Kamakshi Sehgal, Adv Ms. Ayushi Amod, Adv. Mr. Pranav Saigal, Adv. Ms. Ashita Chawala. Adv Mr. E. C. Agrawala, Adv.
Important Points
Granting a stay of investigation or interim relief under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is permissible only in the rarest of rare cases. The Court emphasized the investigating agency's right to investigate criminal proceedings, reiterating the principles laid down in M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra.
Subject
Criminal Law - Stay of Investigation
Act Referred
Headnote
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 read with Article 226 of Constitution of India - Stay on further proceedings - There shall not be any interim relief during pendency of special criminal applications - Grant of any stay of investigation and/or any interim relief while exercising powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. would be only in rarest of rare cases. (Paras 6 to 8)
M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918 - Relied.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Respondents sought quashing of criminal proceedings and interim stay of investigation; appellant challenged the legality of the interim stay granted by the High Court. (Para 1 , 2 , 5 )
3. The High Court failed to apply the principle that staying an investigation under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is permissible only in the rarest of rare cases. (Para 4 , 6 , 7 )
4. Granting a stay of investigation or interim relief while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is permissible only in the rarest of rare cases. (Para 4 , 6 )
5. Impugned interim order set aside; investigation to be completed within three months; High Court to decide main applications on merits; accused may seek anticipatory bail. (Para 8 )
6. When can a High Court stay a criminal investigation under Section 482 Cr.P.C.?
A stay of investigation or interim relief under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be granted only in the rarest of rare cases, as the investigating agency has a fundamental right to investigate criminal proceedings. (Para 4 , 6 )
7. What is the legal position regarding the grant of interim stays in petitions seeking to quash criminal complaints?
The court emphasized that the power to quash proceedings does not normally justify staying the investigation, and such relief is reserved for the rarest of rare circumstances to avoid stalling the prosecution. (Para 6 , 7 )
8. Can an accused seek anticipatory bail while a petition to quash the FIR is pending?
Yes, the court observed that it is open for the accused to move appropriate applications for seeking anticipatory bail in accordance with the law. (Para 8 )
JUDGMENT :
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned interim order dated 14.02.2022 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in respective Special Criminal Application Nos. 9112 of 2019, 9111 of 2019 and 9475 of 2019 by which the High Court while admitting the special criminal applications filed under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) has granted the interim relief and has stayed the further proceedings of respective criminal inquiry cases against the respondents – accused and whereby has stayed the further investigation with respect to the criminal proceedings initiated by the petitioner-complainant against the respondents – original writ petitioners before the High Court – respondents herein – original accused, the original complainant has preferred the present appeals.
2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that Special Criminal Application Nos. 9111 of 2019 and 9475 of 2019 were arising out of FIR being M. Case No. 2 of 2019 initiated by the appellant – original complainant. Special Criminal Application No. 9112 of 2019 before the High Court was arising out of FIR being M. Case No. 3 of 2019. The private respondents herein – original accused approached the High Court by way of Special Criminal Application Nos. 9112 of 2019, 9111 of 2019 and 9475 of 2019 to quash the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The said special criminal applications were filed before the High Court on 01.10.2019. Before any further investigation was carried out by the Investigating Officer, the learned Single Judge of the High Court vide common order dated 10.10.2019 passed ex-parte ad-interim order directed that there shall not be any coercive steps taken against the original writ petitioners – accused. The common interim order dated 10.10.2019 passed in the aforesaid special criminal applications was the subject matter of special leave petitions before this Court. By order dated 09.12.2019 while issuing notice to the respondents therein, this Court stayed the interim order dated 10.10.2019.
In continuation of the order dated 09.12.2019, this Court passed a further order on 17.12.2019 and observed that it shall be open for the accused – respondents to seek anticipatory bail in accordance with law, which may be considered expeditiously. Nothing is on record to show that thereafter any further proceedings were initiated by the respondents – accused seeking anticipatory bail. The special leave petitions filed before this Court against the common order dated 10.10.2019 were converted into Criminal Appeal Nos. 1657, 1658, 1659 and 1660 of 2021. By a detailed judgment and order dated 17.12.2021 and after considering the decision of this Court in the case of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. , AIR 2021 SC 1918, this Court quashed and set aside the interim orders dated 10.10.2019 passed in respective special criminal applications. Despite the above order passed by this Court thereafter by the impugned orders, while admitting the respective special criminal applications, the learned Single Judge of the High Court has again granted the impugned interim reliefs staying further criminal proceedings and resultantly staying further investigation. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned interim order passed by the High Court granting interim relief and staying further criminal proceedings and resultantly staying further investigation, the original complainant has preferred the present appeals.
3. We have heard Shri Harshit Tolia, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner – appellant – original complainant; Shri K.M. Natraj, learned ASG appearing on behalf of the respondent – State of Gujarat and Shri P.S. Patwalia and Shri Maninder Singh, learned Senior Advocates appearing on behalf of the respondents – original writ pe
