1. Appeals against High Court interim orders granting no coercive steps in petitions seeking quashing of FIRs under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2021 Supreme(SC) 1144
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. SHAH, B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.
Siddharth Mukesh Bhandari - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Gujarat & Anr. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1657 of 2021(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 11123 of 2019) with Criminal Appeal No. 1660 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 11015 of 2019) With Criminal Appeal No. 1659 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 11035 of 2019) With Criminal Appeal No. 1658 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 11057 of 2019)
Decided on : 17-12-2021
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Goswami, Adv., Mr. Harshit Tolia, Adv., Mr. P. S. Sudheer, AOR, Ms. Anne Mathew, Adv., Mr. Bharat Sood, Adv., Ms. Shruti Jose, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Satvik Varma, Sr. Adv., Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv., Mr. Ankur Saigal, Adv., Mr. Anirudh Bhatia, Adv., Mr. Rohan Pratap Talwar, Adv., Ms. Ayushi Amod, Adv., Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR, Ms. Aastha Mehta, Adv., Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR, Ms. Prerana Mohapatra, Adv., Ms. Anushree Prashit Kapadia, AOR, Ms. Priyanka Rathi, Adv.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Goswami, Adv., Mr. Harshit Tolia, Adv., Mr. P. S. Sudheer, AOR, Ms. Anne Mathew, Adv., Mr. Bharat Sood, Adv., Ms. Shruti Jose, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Satvik Varma, Sr. Adv., Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv., Mr. Ankur Saigal, Adv., Mr. Anirudh Bhatia, Adv., Mr. Rohan Pratap Talwar, Adv., Ms. Ayushi Amod, Adv., Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR, Ms. Aastha Mehta, Adv., Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR, Ms. Prerana Mohapatra, Adv., Ms. Anushree Prashit Kapadia, AOR, Ms. Priyanka Rathi, Adv.
Important Points
High Courts should not routinely grant interim orders of 'no coercive steps' during quashing petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 226. Accused should instead seek anticipatory bail. Such orders require specific reasons and must not thwart the statutory right of police to investigate cognizable offences.
Subject
Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR
Act Referred
Headnote
Interim Orders - Quashing of FIRs - Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Police Investigation - Judicial Interference - [INTERIM ORDERS] - [QUASHING OF FIRS] - [Section 482 Cr.P.C., Article 226 of the Constitution of India] - [The court discussed the statutory right and duty of the police to investigate into a cognizable offence, the sparing exercise of quashing power, the complementary functions of the judiciary and the police, and the need for caution and self-restraint in exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The court emphasized that the court should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences unless non-interference would result in a miscarriage of justice. The court also highlighted the need for brief reasons when granting interim stay of further investigation and the requirement to clarify the meaning of 'no coercive steps to be adopted' in interim orders.]
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to the validity of ex parte interim orders directing that no coercive steps be taken against accused persons during quashing proceedings. (Para 2 )
3. Courts should not routinely thwart investigations into cognizable offences or pass vague no coercive steps orders, as police have a statutory duty to investigate. (Para 3 , 5 )
4. Interim orders of no coercive steps during quashing proceedings are generally unsustainable; accused should instead seek anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. (Para 5 )
5. The impugned interim orders of the High Court are quashed and set aside, and the appeals are allowed. (Para 6 , 7 )
6. Can a court pass an interim order of no coercive steps during quashing proceedings?
Such orders should not be passed routinely, casually, or mechanically. Normally, the High Court should restrain itself from passing orders of no arrest or no coercive steps and relegate the accused to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. (Para 5 )
7. What is the scope of judicial interference in the investigation of cognizable offences?
Courts should not thwart investigations into cognizable offences unless no offence is disclosed in the FIR. The functions of the judiciary and police are complementary and non-overlapping; courts should not usurp police jurisdiction during the investigation stage. (Para 5 )
8. What parameters must a court consider when exercising power to quash an FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C.?
The court must only consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. It cannot embark upon an enquiry into the reliability or genuineness of the allegations or the merits of the case. (Para 5 )
9. What requirements must be met if a High Court grants an interim stay of investigation?
The court must provide brief reasons why the interim order is warranted to demonstrate the application of mind and must clarify the specific meaning of terms like no coercive steps to avoid vagueness. (Para 5 )
ORDER :
Leave granted.
1. The common question of law and facts arises in this group of appeals were disposed of by this common judgment and order.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned interim order dated 10.10.2019 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad passed in Special Criminal Application Nos. 9110/2019 to 9112/2019 by which in the petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing of the FIRs/Criminal proceedings, the High Court on very first day of hearing of the aforesaid Special Criminal Applications, has passed ex parte interim orders to the effect that there shall not be any coercive steps taken against the private respondents-herein – original petitioners, the original contemnors have preferred the present Appeals.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and the manner in which the High Court has passed the impugned ex parte interim orders of no coercive steps be taken against the original accused cannot be approved and it is unsustainable.
4. The issue whether such an interim order of no coercive seps during the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could have been passed or not is now not res integra in view of the recent decision of this Court in M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. , 2021 (5) Scale 610.
5. After detailed analysis of law on the point this Court has concluded as under:
i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence;
ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences;
iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on;
iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the ‘rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty).
v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint;
vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;
vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule;
viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate 59in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere;
ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping;
x) Save in exceptional cases where non interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;
xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice;
xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure;
xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment
