TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 1244X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice; ordinarily criminal proceedings instituted against an Accused person must be tried under the provisions of the Code, and the High Court would be reluctant to interfere with the said proceedings at an interlocutory stage. In the case of KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY AND ORS. VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. [ 1977 (3) TMI 172 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] , this Court observed and held that inherent powers Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice; that statutory power has to be exercised sparingly with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases - In catena of decisions, this Court has reiterated the parameters for exercise of inherent powers Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure and/or Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the matter of quashing the FIR/complaint. The powers of investigation into cognizable offences are contained in Chapter XIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 154 deals with information in cognizable offence and Section 156 with investigation into such offence and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Court is exercising the extraordinary and inherent powers Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure and/or Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has committed a grave error of law and also of facts in passing such an interim order of no coercive steps to be adopted and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. The final conclusions on the principal/core issue are as follows: 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 so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... power Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR; xvi) The aforesaid parameters would be applicable and/or the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered by the High Court while passing an interim order in a quashing petition in exercise of powers Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure and/or Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, an interim order of stay of investigation during the 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 the investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy and the entire evidence/material is not before the High Court, the High Court should restrain itself from passing the interim order of not to arrest or no coercive steps to be adopted and the Accused should b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Code of Criminal Procedure 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 Code of Criminal Procedure. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll 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 Appellant-original Respondent No. 2-complainant, Shri Diljeet Ahluwalia with Shri Malak Manish Bhatt, learned Advocates have appeared on behalf of the original Accused-writ Petitioners-Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 herein and Shri Sachin Patil and Shri Rahul Chitnis, learned Advocates have appeared on behalf of the State of Maharashtra. 3.1. Shri K.V. Vishwanathan, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant-original complainant has vehemently submitted that such a blanket direction of the High Court restraining the investigating officer from taking coercive measures, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was not warranted at all. 3.2. It is submitted that, as such, the original Accused-Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 herein were already having the interim protection from the learned Sessions Court, Mumbai in the anticipatory bail application which was continued from time to time since last one year. It is submitted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd in the rarest of rare cases. It is submitted that it cannot be disputed that Accused cannot approach the High Court Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure and/or Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, as held by this Court in catena of decisions, inherent power in a matter of quashing of FIR has to be exercised sparingly and with caution and when and only when such exercise is justified by the test specifically laid down in the provision itself. It is submitted that in the aforesaid decision it is observed and held that power Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure is very wide but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the Court. 3.7. It is submitted that in a given case, the Court, having found that the case falls within the parameters of exercise of powers Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the FIR, may pass appropriate interim orders as thought apposite in law, but even such an interim order shall be passed regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law. It is submitted that even in such a case the High Court has to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or no coercive measures order in exercise of its powers Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure/Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in support of his submissions that (1) inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice and the statutory power has to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases; (2) power of the police to investigate into a cognizable offence is ordinarily not to be interfered with by the judiciary; (3) save in exceptional case 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; (4) in case a police officer transgresses the circumscribed limits and improperly and illegally exercises his powers in relation to the process of investigation, then the Court has the necessary powers to consider the nature and extent of the breach and pass appropriate orders; (5) the High Court being the highest Court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2021, decided on 05.03.2021), by which a somewhat similar order of protection of not to arrest passed while not entertaining the quashing petition Under Section 482, has been set aside by this Court considering the decision of this Court in the case of Habib Abdullah Jeelani (supra). 3.15. Shri Vishwanathan, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant has further submitted that in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2018) 16 SCC 299, this Court has observed and held that even in a case of challenge to the framing of the charge, wherever the stay is granted by the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction or otherwise, a speaking order must be passed showing that the case was of an exceptional nature. 3.16. It is further submitted that in many of the cases it is seen that the High Court while not entertaining the quashing petitions Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure and/or Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and while dismissing such petitions, still grants interim protection/protection of not to arrest for a particular period or even till the report is filed Under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te is tried to be converted into a criminal dispute, only with a view to harass Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 herein. However, we do not propose to deal with the case on merits and consider whether the impugned FIR is an abuse of process of law or not, as Section 482 petition is yet required to be dealt with by the High Court on merits in the pending proceedings. 4.2. Learned Advocates appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 herein-original Accused-original writ Petitioners have submitted that as held by this Court in catena of decisions, the powers possessed by the High Court Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure and/or Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are very wide. It is submitted that as held by this Court, the High Court may exercise its powers Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure and/or Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is submitted therefore in exercise of its wholesome powers, the High Court would be justified and entitled to quash the proceedings. It is submitted that similarly the High Court would be justified ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the offence alleged and exceptional case being made out on the grounds mentioned by this Court in the cases of Bhajan Lal (supra); R.P. Kapur (supra); and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. (supra), by giving brief reasons, the High Court would be justified in even staying the further investigation, by way of an interim order. It is submitted that misuse of criminal proceedings is not unknown and the criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course and therefore to take away the inherent powers of the High Court would not be in the larger public interest also. 4.8. Relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330, it is submitted that while exercising the powers Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, the High Court is required to undertake step-wise enquiry as mentioned in para 30 of the said decision and if the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, the High Court would be justified in quashing the criminal proceedings. It is submitted that the grounds on which the criminal proceedings can be quashed in exercise of powers Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, the very grounds can be made a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de (which is pari materia with Section 482 of the Code), it is observed and held that the inherent powers of the High Court Under Section 561 of the earlier Code cannot be exercised in regard to the matters specifically covered by the other provisions of the Code; the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be exercised to quash proceedings in a proper case either to prevent the abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice; ordinarily criminal proceedings instituted against an Accused person must be tried under the provisions of the Code, and the High Court would be reluctant to interfere with the said proceedings at an interlocutory stage. After observing this, thereafter this Court then carved out some exceptions to the above-stated rule, which are as under: (i) Where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the criminal proceeding in respect of the offence alleged. Absence of the requisite sanction may, for instance, furnish cases under this category. (ii) Where the allegations in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rticle 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the FIR and referred to several judicial precedents and held that the High Court should not embark upon an inquiry into the merits and demerits of the allegations and quash the proceedings without allowing the investigating agency to complete its task. At the same time, this Court identified the following cases in which FIR/complaint can be quashed: 102.(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the Accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers Under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the Accused. (4) Where the allegat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... merely recognises and preserves inherent powers of the High Courts. All courts, whether civil or criminal, possess in the absence of any express provision, as inherent in their constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice on the principle quando lex aliquid alique concedit, conceditur et id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest (when the law gives a person anything, it gives him that without which it cannot exist). While exercising powers under the section, the Court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the Section though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the Section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist. Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent such abuse. It would be an abuse of the process of the court to allow any action which would resu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard-and-fast Rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage. [See Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary [ (1992) 4 SCC 305 : 1993 SCC (Cri.) 36 : AIR 1993 SC 892] and Raghubir Saran (Dr.) v. State of Bihar [AIR 1964 SC 1 : (1964) 1 Cri. LJ 1].] It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises, arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. In a proceeding instituted on complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognisance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to qua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. In a proceeding instituted on complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers Under Section 482 of the Code. It is not, however, necessary that there should be meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears that on consideration of the allegations in the light of the statement made on oath of the complainant that the ingredients of the offence or offences are disclosed and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court. When an information is lodged at the police station and an offence is regi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igation of FIR or complaint. Such a course will result in miscarriage of justice and would encourage those Accused of committing crimes to repeat the same. However, if the High Court is satisfied that the complaint does not disclose commission of any offence or prosecution is barred by limitation or that the proceedings of criminal case would result in failure of justice, then it may exercise inherent power Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure. 7.7. In the case of Arun Gulab Gawali (supra), this Court set aside the order passed by the High Court quashing the criminal complaint/FIR which was even filed by the complainant. In the case before this Court, prayer for quashing the FIR before the High Court was by the complainant himself and the High Court quashed the FIR/complaint in exercise of the powers Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure. Quashing and setting aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court quashing the FIR, this Court in paragraphs 13 and 27 to 29 has observed as under: 13. The power of quashing criminal proceedings has to be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases and the Court cannot be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cution in such a case. The reliance on affidavits by the High Court would be a weak, hazy and unreliable source for adjudication on the fate of a trial. The presumption that an Accused would never be convicted on the material available is too risky a proposition to be accepted readily, particularly in heinous offences like extortion. 28. A claim founded on a denial by the complainant even before the trial commences coupled with an allegation that the police had compelled the lodging of a false FIR, is a matter which requires further investigation as the charge is levelled against the police. If the prosecution is quashed, then neither the trial court nor the investigating agency has any opportunity to go into this question, which may require consideration. The State is the prosecutor and all prosecution is the social and legal responsibility of the State. An offence committed is a crime against society and not against the victim alone. The victim under undue pressure or influence of the Accused or under any threat or compulsion may resile back but that would not absolve the State from bringing the Accused to book, who has committed an offence and has violated the law of the lan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th the investigation by the police, while exercising the inherent powers Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure and/or Article 226 of the Constitution of India, few decisions of this Court are required to be noticed and referred to, which are as under. 9.1. In the case of State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha, (1980) 1 SCC 554, this Court, after referring to the precedents including the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Khawaja Nazir Ahmad (supra), has observed in paragraphs 25 and 26 as under: 25. There is a clear-cut and well demarcated sphere of activity in the field of crime detection and crime punishment. Investigation of an offence is the field exclusively reserved for the executive through the police department the superintendence over which vests in the State Government. The executive which is charged with a duty to keep vigilance over law and order situation is obliged to prevent crime and if an offence is alleged to have been committed it is its bounded duty to investigate into the offence and bring the offender to book. Once it investigates and finds an offence having been committed it is its duty to collect evidence for the purpose of proving the off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of S.M. Sharma v. Bipen Kumar Tiwari, (1970) 1 SCC 653: It appears to us that, though the Code of Criminal Procedure gives to the police unfettered power to investigate all cases where they suspect that a cognizable offence has been committed, in appropriate cases an aggrieved person can always seek a remedy by invoking the power of the High Court Under Article 226 of the Constitution under which, if the High Court could be convinced that the power of investigation has been exercised by a police officer mala fide, the High Court can always issue a writ of mandamus restraining the police officer from misusing his legal powers. 9.2. In the case of Union of India v. Prakash P. Hinduja, (2003) 6 SCC 195, in paragraph 20, it is observed and held as under: 20. Thus the legal position is absolutely clear and also settled by judicial authorities that the court would not interfere with the investigation or during the course of investigation which would mean from the time of the lodging of the first information report till the submission of the report by the officer in charge of the police station in court Under Section 173(2) Code of Criminal Procedure, this field being exc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... investigate the matters on the alleged ground that no part of the offence was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the police station at Delhi. The appreciation of the evidence is the function of the courts when seized of the matter. At the stage of investigation, the material collected by an investigating officer cannot be judicially scrutinized for arriving at a conclusion that the police station officer of a particular police station would not have territorial jurisdiction. In any case, it has to be stated that in view of Section 178(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, when it is uncertain in which of the several local areas an offence was committed, or where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, the said offence can be enquired into or tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. Therefore, to say at the stage of investigation that the SHO, Police Station Paschim Vihar, New Delhi was not having territorial jurisdiction, is on the face of it, illegal and erroneous. That apart, Section 156(2) contains an embargo that no proceeding of a police officer shall be challenged on the ground that he has no territorial power to inv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be regulated by proceeding against the offender as it is an offence against society as a whole. 9.6. In the case of Supdt. of Police, CBI v. Tapan Kumar Singh, (2003) 6 SCC 175 and in the case of State of U.P. v. Naresh, (2011) 4 SCC 324, it is observed and held by this Court that FIR is not an encyclopaedia, which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. In paragraph 20 in the case of Tapan Kumar Singh (supra), it is observed and held as under: 20. It is well settled that a first information report is not an encyclopaedia, which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. An informant may lodge a report about the commission of an offence though he may not know the name of the victim or his assailant. He may not even know how the occurrence took place. A first informant need not necessarily be an eyewitness so as to be able to disclose in great detail all aspects of the offence committed. What is of significance is that the information given must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and the information so lodged must provide a basis for the police officer to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence. At ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved for the investigating agency. 9.8. In the case of P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24, this Court while considering the powers of the investigating agency to investigate the cognizable offence, has observed in paragraphs 61, 64 to 67 as under: 61. The investigation of a cognizable offence and the various stages thereon including the interrogation of the Accused is exclusively reserved for the investigating agency whose powers are unfettered so long as the investigating officer exercises his investigating powers well within the provisions of the law and the legal bounds. In exercise of its inherent power Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court can interfere and issue appropriate direction only when the Court is convinced that the power of the investigating officer is exercised mala fide or where there is abuse of power and non-compliance of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, this power of invoking inherent jurisdiction to issue direction and interfering with the investigation is exercised only in rare cases where there is abuse of process or non-compliance of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a different matter that the High Court in exercise of its inherent power Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, can always issue appropriate direction at the instance of an aggrieved person if the High Court is convinced that the power of investigation has been exercised by the investigating officer mala fide and not in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, as pointed out earlier that power is to be exercised in rare cases where there is a clear abuse of power and non-compliance of the provisions falling under Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure requiring the interference of the High Court. In the initial stages of investigation where the Court is considering the question of grant of regular bail or pre-arrest bail, it is not for the Court to enter into the demarcated function of the investigation and collection of evidence/materials for establishing the offence and interrogation of the Accused and the witnesses. 9.9. In the recent decision of this Court in the case of Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh, it is observed in paragraph 41 as under: 41. It is needless to point out that ever s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Code of Criminal Procedure. 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 offen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hereinabove. 12. In a given case, there may be allegations of abuse of process of law by converting a civil dispute into a criminal dispute, only with a view to pressurise the Accused. Similarly, in a given case the complaint itself on the face of it can be said to be barred by law. The allegations in the FIR/complaint may not at all disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. In such cases and in exceptional cases with circumspection, the High Court may stay the further investigation. However, at the same time, there may be genuine complaints/FIRs and the police/investigating agency has a statutory obligation/right/duty to enquire into the cognizable offences. Therefore, a balance has to be struck between the rights of the genuine complainants and the FIRs disclosing commission of a cognizable offence and the statutory obligation/duty of the investigating agency to investigate into the cognizable offences on the one hand and those innocent persons against whom the criminal proceedings are initiated which may be in a given case abuse of process of law and the process. However, if the facts are hazy and the investigation has just begun, the High Court would be circumspect i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ticular Under Article 21. 14. A similar view has been expressed by this Court again in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited (supra). By deprecating the interlocutory orders/stay of criminal proceedings by the High Courts, it is observed by this Court that the stay should not be considered as an incentive to cause delay in the proceedings. It is further observed that order granting stay or extending it must be a speaking order and stay not to operate long. It is further observed in the said decision that delay in a criminal trial has deleterious effect on the administration of justice in which the society has a vital interest; delay in trials affects the faith in Rule of Law and efficacy of the legal system; it affects social welfare and development; mere prima facie case is not enough; party seeking stay must be put to terms and stay should not be incentive to delay; the order granting stay must show application of mind; the power to grant stay is coupled with accountability. It is further observed that wherever stay is granted, a speaking order must be passed showing that the case was of an exceptional nature. 15. As observed hereinabove, there may be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore, passing such type of blanket interim orders without assigning reasons, of not to arrest and/or no coercive steps would hamper the investigation and may affect the statutory right/duty of the police to investigate the cognizable offence conferred under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, such a blanket order is not justified at all. The order of the High Court must disclose reasons why it has passed an ad-interim direction during the pendency of the proceedings Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure Such reasons, however brief must disclose an application of mind. The aforesaid is required to be considered from another angle also. Granting of such blanket order would not only adversely affect the investigation but would have far reaching implications for maintaining the Rule of Law. Where the investigation is stayed for a long time, even if the stay is ultimately vacated, the subsequent investigation may not be very fruitful for the simple reason that the evidence may no longer be available. Therefore, in case, the Accused named in the FIR/complaint apprehends his arrest, he has a remedy to apply for anticipatory bail Under Section 438 Code ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dismissing the quashing petitions Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure and/or Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and having opined that no case is made out to quash the FIR/complaint is concerned, the same is wholly impermissible. 18. This Court in the case of Habib Abdullah Jeelani (supra), as such, deprecated such practice/orders passed by the High Courts, directing police not to arrest, even while declining to interfere with the quashing petition in exercise of powers Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure. In the aforesaid case before this Court, the High Court dismissed the petition filed Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the FIR. However, while dismissing the quashing petition, the High Court directed the police not to arrest the Petitioners during the pendency of the investigation. While setting aside such order, it is observed by this Court that such direction amounts to an order Under Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure, albeit without satisfaction of the conditions of the said provision and the same is legally unacceptable. In the aforesaid decision, it is specifically observed and held by this Court that it is abso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The law declared/laid down by this Court is binding on all the High Courts and not following the law laid down by this Court would have a very serious implications in the administration of justice. 20. In the recent decision of this Court in the case of Ravuri Krishna Murthy (supra), this bench set aside the similar order passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court of granting a blanket order of protection from arrest, even after coming to the conclusion that no case for quashing was established. The High Court while disposing of the quashing petition and while refusing to quash the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure directed to complete the investigation into the crime without arresting the second Petitioner-A2 and file a final report, if any, in accordance with law. The High Court also further passed an order that the second Petitioner-A2 to appear before the investigating agency as and when required and cooperate with the investigating agency. After considering the decision of this Court in the case of Habib Abdullah Jeelani (supra), this Court set aside the order passed by the High Court restraining the investigating officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d . If the High Court meant by passing such an interim order of no coercive steps directing the investigating agency/police not to further investigate, in that case, such a blanket order without assigning any reasons whatsoever and without even permitting the investigating agency to further investigate into the allegations of the cognizable offence is otherwise unsustainable. It has affected the right of the investigating agency to investigate into the cognizable offences. While passing such a blanket order, the High Court has not indicated any reasons. 21.1. As observed and held by this Court in the case of Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse, (2004) 3 SCC 440 that though, while passing interim orders, it is not necessary to elaborately deal with the merits, it is certainly desirable and proper for the High Court to indicate the reasons which have weighed with it in granting such an extraordinary relief in the form of an interim protection. 21.2. In the case of Nitco Tiles Ltd. v. Gujarat Ceramic Floor Tiles Mfg. Association, (2005) 12 SCC 454, it is observed and held by this Court that when an interim order should, particularly when that order may be impugned before t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. (j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. (k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision-making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. (l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or rubber-stamp reasons is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process. (m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision-making not only makes the judges and decision-makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor [(1987) 100 Harvard Law Review 731-37].) (n) Since the requirement to record reasons em ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order dated 28.09.2020 passed by the High Court, by giving brief reasons and even if the documents/agreements which are alleged to have been suppressed would have been there, it would not have any bearing on the interim order passed by this Court. What is weighed while passing interim order dated 12.10.2020 is very clear from the interim order dated 12.10.2020. Therefore, we close the criminal miscellaneous petition No. 4961/2021 and consequently the same stands disposed of. Conclusions: 23. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, our final conclusions on the principal/core issue, whether the High Court would be justified in passing an interim order of stay of investigation and/or no coercive steps to be adopted , during the pendency of the quashing petition Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure and/or Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in what circumstances and whether the High Court would be justified in passing the order of not to arrest the Accused or no coercive steps to be adopted during the investigation or till the final report/chargesheet is filed Under Section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure, while dismissing/disposing of/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... buse 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 Code of Criminal Procedure is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court; xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint; xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged Accused and the court when it exercises the power Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ive steps to be adopted can be said to be too vague and/or broad which can be misunderstood and/or misapplied. 24. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present appeal succeeds. The impugned interim order/direction contained in Clause (d) of the impugned interim order dated 28.09.2020 by which the 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. However, it is made clear that we have not expressed anything on the merits of the case, more particularly the allegations in the FIR and the High Court to consider the quashing petition in accordance with law and on its own merits and considering the afore-stated observations made by this Court in the present judgment. 25. Having regard to the fact that despite the law laid down by this Court in the case of Habib Abdullah Jeelani (supra) and other decisions, referred to hereinabove, some High Courts have c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
