The court affirmed its jurisdiction to pass interim orders if a prima facie case is not established and if it aligns with the parameters set by previous Supreme Court judgments, despite the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court.

JUDGMENT :

1. Let Cr.M.P.No.714 of 2022 be tagged with instant petition [Cr.M.P.No.690 of 2022] which is also arising out of same FIR.

2. The complaint is the subject matter of the agreement entered between the O.P.No.2 and the petitioners for non-lifting of slag and for non-compliance of the agreement which has been lodged against the petitioners. The liquidation of damages is also one of the subject matter of the agreement. There is arbitration clause in the agreement. The territorial jurisdiction is also questioned by the petitioner.

3. Mr. Tiwari, the learned counsel has appeared suo motu on behalf of the O.P.No.2 in both the cases and waives notice on behalf of the O.P.No.2. He submits that he will file counter affidavit within one week.

4. Mr. Tewari, the learned counsel appearing for the O.P.No.2 submits that the petitioner’s anticipatory bail has already been rejected by the court below. He submits that this Court may not pass any interim order in view of the judgment rendered in the case of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315 and he placed the entire paragraphs of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Paragraph no.57 of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow :

“57. From the aforesaid decisions of this Court, right from the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Khawaja Nazir Ahmad (supra), the following principles of law emerge:

(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 cognizable offences;

(ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences;

(iii) However, in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report the Court will not permit an investigation to go on;

(iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the ‘rarest of rare cases’. (The rarest of rare cases standard in its application for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be confused with the norm which has been formulated in the context of the death penalty, as explained previously by this Court);

(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 and a rarity 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 in two specific spheres of activities. The inherent power of the court is, however, recognised to secure the ends of justice or prevent the above of the process by Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(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. During or 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 appro