9911796707🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
Follow us:
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (3) TMI 1478 - SC - Indian LawsGrant of blanket order of protection from arrest to the second accused - seeking a perpetual injunction against the Appellant in respect of the suit property - blanket direction restraining the police from arresting the third Respondent while at the same time having come to the conclusion that there was no merit in the petition for quashing Under Section 482 - HELD THAT - The High Court was of the view that (i) the truth of the allegations was a matter which had to be ascertained by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation; and (ii) in view of the seriousness of the allegations no relief was being granted to the second Respondent (the first accused). However the High Court proceeded to issue a blanket restraint against the arrest of the third Respondent (the second accused) by directing that the police would complete the investigation and file a final report in accordance with law - the direction of the High Court is unsustainable in law. In The State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani and Ors. 2017 (1) TMI 1683 - SUPREME COURT a controversy arose before this Court where the High Court while declining to exercise its inherent powers Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing an investigation restrained the investigating agency from arresting the accused persons during investigation. This Court held that that such a direction amounted to an exercise Under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure without satisfying any of the conditions stipulated under that section. The High Court was justified in declining to exercise its jurisdiction Under Section 482 and therefore rejected the application for quashing the proceedings. Equally there was no basis or justification for directing that the third Respondent should not be arrested and that the Investigating Officer must complete the investigation and file a final report Under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure without arresting the third Respondent. Such a direction by the High Court has the effect of impeding the course of the investigation and has no basis or justification in law - A blanket direction of the nature which has been issued by the High Court would completely dislocate the investigation and cause a serious obstruction in the enforcement of criminal justice. Such an order ought not to have been passed by the High Court. What compounds matters is that there is not a word in justification in the order of the High Court for issuing such a direction. The High Court has been oblivious to the serious nature of the allegations involving the tampering of a judicial record. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court set aside - appeal allowed.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Court in this judgment are:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Justification for refusal to quash the F.I.R. Relevant legal framework and precedents: The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC allow it to quash criminal proceedings in appropriate cases to prevent abuse of process or miscarriage of justice. However, such powers are to be exercised sparingly and judicial restraint is mandated, especially when the investigation is ongoing and allegations prima facie disclose a cognizable offence. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that the High Court had rightly observed that the truth or otherwise of the allegations must be ascertained by the investigating agency during the course of investigation. The High Court found prima facie material against the petitioners and declined to quash the F.I.R., which was consistent with the principle that quashing should not be resorted to at the threshold unless the allegations are palpably false or untenable. Key evidence and findings: The complaint alleged collusion between the first accused and the second accused (a lawyer) to fabricate a sale deed and tamper judicial records, including an ex-parte judgment and decree. The District Collector's enquiry confirmed fabrication of the decree and judgment. These findings lent credence to the allegations and justified investigation. Application of law to facts: Given the prima facie material and serious nature of allegations involving tampering with judicial records and forgery, the Court upheld the High Court's refusal to quash the F.I.R., emphasizing the need for investigation to proceed. Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioners argued for quashing on grounds of false allegations and harassment. The Court acknowledged the apprehension of arrest but emphasized that the existence of serious allegations and corroborative enquiry report outweighed such concerns at the stage of investigation. Conclusion: The refusal to quash the F.I.R. was legally sound and consistent with established principles governing exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC. Issue 2: Legality of the blanket direction restraining arrest of the third Respondent Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 438 CrPC provides for anticipatory bail and conditions under which arrest may be restrained. The High Court's power under Section 482 CrPC to grant protection from arrest is circumscribed by the conditions stipulated under Section 438. The Supreme Court's decision in the State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani and Ors. (2017) was cited, wherein it was held that a direction restraining arrest issued without satisfying the conditions of Section 438 is legally impermissible. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court held that the High Court's direction restraining arrest was unsustainable because it effectively amounted to an order under Section 438 CrPC without fulfilling its requirements. The Court emphasized that such directions, when issued while declining to quash the F.I.R., obstruct the investigation and have no sanction in law. Key evidence and findings: The High Court's order lacked any justification or reasoning for the restraint on arrest. The seriousness of the allegations, confirmed by the Collector's report, underscored the impropriety of such a direction. The charge-sheet had been filed, and the investigation was ongoing, further militating against any blanket protection. Application of law to facts: The Court applied the principle from the Habib Abdullah Jeelani case, holding that the High Court's order was effectively an unauthorized anticipatory bail order. The Court stressed that remedies such as anticipatory bail or regular bail under Sections 438 and 439 CrPC are available to protect liberty, and blanket directions circumvent this legal framework. Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioners' apprehension of arrest and harassment was acknowledged but held insufficient to justify the blanket restraint. The Court underscored the need to balance liberty against the interest of investigation and enforcement of criminal justice. Conclusion: The Court disapproved and set aside the High Court's direction restraining arrest, emphasizing that it had no foundation in law and impeded the course of investigation. Issue 3: Scope of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC and judicial restraint Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Court reiterated the principle that Section 482 CrPC is a residuary provision to prevent abuse of process and miscarriage of justice but should be exercised with caution. The Court referred to the Habib Abdullah Jeelani case, which cautioned against misuse of inherent jurisdiction to obtain interim reliefs that obstruct investigation. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court emphasized that while the High Court has jurisdiction to quash investigations or pass interim orders, it must do so only after careful consideration of the facts and law. An order declining to quash but granting interim protection from arrest without justification is contradictory and legally untenable. Key evidence and findings: The Court found the High Court's order internally inconsistent and lacking any rationale for the arrest restraint. The Court also noted the serious nature of the offences alleged, which warranted investigation without undue interference. Application of law to facts: The Court applied the principle of judicial restraint and held that the High Court's order was an inappropriate exercise of inherent jurisdiction, lacking legal basis and causing obstruction to criminal justice. Treatment of competing arguments: The Court acknowledged the petitioners' concerns but held that the proper remedy lies in bail applications, not in blanket arrest prohibitions issued at the quashing stage. Conclusion: The Court clarified the limits of Section 482 CrPC, disapproved the High Court's approach, and underscored the importance of judicial restraint in criminal matters. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS "Such a direction by the High Court has the effect of impeding the course of the investigation and has no basis or justification in law." "A blanket direction of the nature which has been issued by the High Court would completely dislocate the investigation and cause a serious obstruction in the enforcement of criminal justice. Such an order ought not to have been passed by the High Court." "The High Court has been oblivious to the serious nature of the allegations, involving the tampering of a judicial record. We disapprove of the course followed by the High Court. It has no foundation in law." "The States where Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure has not been deleted and kept on the statute book, the High Court should be well advised that while entertaining petitions Under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, exercise judicial restraint." Final determinations:
|
