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 of