Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, M.R. SHAH, SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.
M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited - Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra And Others - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 330 of 2021
Decided on : 13-04-2021
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Constitution of India – Article 226 – Quashing petition – Scope and ambit – Police has statutory right and duty under relevant provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of Code to investigate into a cognizable offence – Courts would not thwart any investigation into cognizable offences – It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in first information report that Court will not permit an investigation to go on – Power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection – While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to reliability or genuineness or otherwise of allegations made in FIR/complaint – Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at initial stage – Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule – Ordinarily, courts are barred from usurping jurisdiction of police, since two organs of State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over other sphere – Functions of judiciary and police are complementary, not overlapping – Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, Court and judicial process should not interfere at stage of investigation of offences. (Paras 10, 15 and 23)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Constitution of India – Article 226 – Quashing petition – Scope and ambit – Extraordinary and inherent powers of Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on Court to act according to its whims or caprice – First information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to offence reported – When investigation by police is in progress, court should not go into merits of allegations in FIR – Police must be permitted to complete investigation – It would be premature to pronounce conclusion based on hazy facts that complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law – After investigation, if investigating officer finds that there is no substance in application made by complainant, investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before Magistrate which may be considered by Magistrate in accordance with known procedure – Power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires court to be more cautious – It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on court – However, at the same time, court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and self-restraint imposed by law, has jurisdiction to quash FIR/complaint – When a prayer for quashing FIR is made by alleged accused and court when it exercises power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether allegations in FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. (Para 23)
(C) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Quashing petition – Scope and ambit – Court is not required to consider on merits whether or not merits of allegations make out a cognizable offence and court has to permit investigating agency/police to investigate allegations in FIR – Such parameters would be applicable and/or such aspects are required to be considered by High Court while passing an interim order in a quashing petition in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of Constitution of India – However, an interim order of stay of investigation during pendency of the quashing petition can be passed with circumspection – Such an interim order should not require to be passed routinely, casually and/or mechanically – Normally, when investigation is in progress and facts are hazy and entire evidence/material is not before High Court, High Court should restrain itself from passing interim order of not to arrest or “no coercive steps to be adopted” and accused should be relegated to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before competent court – High Court shall not and as such is not justified in passing order of not to arrest and/or “no coercive steps” either during investigation or till investigation is completed and/or till final report/charge-sheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of Constitution of India – Even in a case where High Court is prima facie of opinion that an exceptional case is made out for grant of interim stay of further investigation, after considering broad parameters while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of Constitution of India, High Court has to give brief reasons why such an interim order is warranted and/or is required to be passed so that it can demonstrate application of mind by Court and higher forum can consider what was weighed with High Court while passing such an interim order – Whenever an interim order is passed by High Court of “no coercive steps to be adopted” within such parameters, High Court must clarify what does it mean by “no coercive steps to be adopted” as the term “no coercive steps to be adopted” can be said to be too vague and/or broad which can be misunderstood and/or misapplied. (Paras 10, 15 and 23)
Facts of the case:
Principal issue which arises is when and where the High Court would be justified in passing an interim order either staying further investigation in the FIR/complaint or interim order in the nature of “no coercive steps” and/or not to arrest the accused either pending investigation by police/investigating agency or during the pendency of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of Constitution of India pending before the High Court?
Findings of Court:
Impugned interim order/direction contained in clause (d) of the impugned interim order dated 28.09.2020 by which High Court has directed that “no coercive measures to be adopted” against the petitioners (respondent nos. 2 to 4 herein) in respect of FIR No. 367/2019 dated 19.09.2019, registered at Worli Police Station, Mumbai, Maharashtra (subsequently transferred to Economic Offence Wing, Unit IX, Mumbai, renumbered as C.R. No. 82/2019) is hereby quashed and set aside.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Understood. Please provide the legal document content (inside
JUDGMENT :
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned interim order dated 28.09.2020 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition (ST) No. 2306 of 2020, by which, in an application filed by private respondent nos. 2 to 4 herein (hereinafter referred to as the 'original accused') under Article 226 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the criminal proceedings being FIR No. 367/2019 dated 19.09.2019, the High Court has directed that "no coercive measures shall be adopted" against the original accused in respect of the said FIR, the original complainant has preferred the present appeal.
2. That the appellant herein has lodged an FIR against respondent nos. 2 to 4 herein - original accused at Worli Police Station, Mumbai for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. That the allegations against the original accused pertain to forgery and fabrication of Board Resolution and the fraudulent sale of a valuable property Naziribagh Palace ad-measuring 111,882 sq. ft. belonging to the appellant company to one M/s Irish Hospitality Pvt. Ltd.
2.1 Apprehending their arrest in connection with the aforesaid FIR, the original accused filed anticipatory bail application before the learned trial Court under Section 438 Cr.P.C. That the learned Sessions Court, Mumbai granted interim protection from arrest to the alleged accused. That the interim protection, which was granted by the learned Sessions Court, was further extended from time to time and continued nearly for a year thereafter. That during the pendency of the anticipatory bail application pending before the learned Sessions Court, Mumbai, original accused - respondent nos. 2 to 4 herein preferred a petition before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay under Article 226 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR, on 17.09.2020.
That the said writ petition was listed for hearing before the Division Bench of the High Court on 22.09.2020, wherein an order was passed directing the matter to be listed on 24.09.2020 before another Bench. That on 28.09.2020, the writ petition was listed for hearing before another Division Bench. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant herein (respondent no.2 before the High Court) prayed for two weeks' time to file an affidavit in reply with an additional compilation of documents. That the Division Bench granted two weeks' time to the appellant herein to file an affidavit in reply with an additional compilation of documents in the Registry on or before 12.10.2020 with copy to the other side. Liberty was granted to the original accused (writ petitioners before the High Court) to file rejoinder, if any, on or before 19.10.2020. The matter was directed to be listed on board on 28.10.2020. While adjourning the matter to 28.10.2020, the High Court has passed the impugned interim order directing that "no coercive measures shall be adopted against the petitioners (original accused - respondent nos. 2 to 4 herein) in respect of the said FIR". When the aforesaid order was being passed, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that anticipatory bail application filed by the original writ petitioners before the learned Sessions Court is pending for hearing and the learned Sessions Court may get influenced by the said order and therefore the Division Bench clarified that the learned Sessions Court shall decide the anticipatory bail application on its own merits.
2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned interim order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court directing that "no coercive measures shall be adopted" against the original accused (writ petitioners before the High Court) in respect of the said FIR, the original complainant has preferred the present appeal.
3. Shri K.V. Vishwanathan, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of the
(1) Power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to reliability or genuin....
The power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 should be exercised sparingly, carefully, and with caution, and only when justified by the tests laid down in the section itself. Q....
The investigating agency cannot be restrained from investigating the FIR if it prima facie discloses the commission of a cognizable offence.
The court established that judicial interference in police investigations is limited and should only occur in exceptional cases to prevent miscarriage of justice.
Exercise of quashing power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be sparing and justified by specific tests laid down in the provision itself
Point of law : Needless to point out that if the law provides a particular remedy to an accused, then it is always open for him to exhaust the same while approaching the concerned Court while filing ....
It is the duty of a Judge to sustain the judicial balance and not to think of an order which can cause trauma to the process of adjudication
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
