TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 92X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11) TMI 386 - SUPREME COURT] . In NEEHARIKA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. [ 2021 (4) TMI 1244 - SUPREME COURT] it is clear that the interference of the High Court at the stage of investigation has to be in exceptional circumstances and the High Court is not to embark upon an enquiry as to the genuineness or otherwise of the allegations levelled in the FIR. In the present case the petitioner has raised a number of grounds, all of which are a matter of his defence or at best would be placed before the investigating agency when he joins investigation. This Court cannot examine the veracity or the genuineness of the documents attached to this petition and come to the conclusion that no case is made out against the petitioner. There is no merit in the present quashing petition, which is hereby dismissed. - CRM-M-17230-2022 - - - Dated:- 28-4-2022 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present:- Mr. Vaibhav Sehgal, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Amit Aggarwal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (ORAL) The Prayer in this petition under Section 482 Cr.PC is for quashing of FIR No.0629 dated 25.06.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so contended that during a roadside checking on 14.10.2017 the vehicle of the petitioner carrying Iron scrap was detained by the ETO Hansi and on checking it was found by the State Tax Authority that the transaction was valid. 4. As per the petitioner, he raised his grievance before the DGP and the ADGP Haryana vide representation dated 19.02.2021 and 10.12.2021 (Annexure P-11 and P-12 respectively) regarding his false implication but no action was taken on the said representations. Thus his contention was that the investigating agency was unable to find any material whatsoever in the last almost three years against the petitioner and the documentary evidence available on the police file as also before this Court clearly established the innocence of the petitioner. 5. The Counsel for the State on the other hand has contended that the bail application of the petitioner had been rejected (a fact fairly admitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner) and the petitioner is absconding thereafter. Because of this fact, the investigation has not been able to make any progress. However, a perusal of the FIR and the documents attached with the same prima facie establish the commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... smissing/disposing of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. xvii) Even in a case where the High Court is prima facie of the opinion that an exceptional case is made out for grant of interim stay of further investigation, after considering the broad parameters while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India referred to hereinabove, the 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 the application of mind by the Court and the higher forum can consider what was weighed with the High Court while passing such an interim order. xviii) Whenever an interim order is passed by the High Court of no coercive steps to be adopted within the aforesaid parameters, the 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. A perusal of the aforementioned judgment would reveal that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has cat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
