9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (1) TMI 1683 - SC - Indian LawsJurisdiction - power of High Court to restraint the investigating agency not to arrest the accused persons during the course of investigation - Whether the High Court while refusing to exercise inherent powers Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code of Criminal Procedure) to interfere in an application for quashment of the investigation can restrain the investigating agency not to arrest the accused persons during the course of investigation? HELD THAT - There can be no dispute over the proposition that inherent power in a matter of quashment 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. There is no denial of the fact that the power Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure is very wide but it needs no special emphasis to state that conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the Court. In the instant case the High Court has not referred to allegations made in the FIR or what has come out in the investigation. It has noted and correctly that the investigation is in progress and it is not appropriate to stay the investigation of the case. It has disposed of the application Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure and while doing that it has directed that the investigating agency shall not arrest the accused persons. This direction amounts to an order Under Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure albeit without satisfaction of the conditions of the said provision. This is legally unacceptable. In RANJIT SINGH VERSUS STATE OF M.P. AND ORS. 2013 (9) TMI 1240 - SUPREME COURT the High Court had directed that considering the nature of the allegation and the evidence collected in the case-diary the Petitioner shall surrender before the competent court and shall apply for regular bail and the same shall be considered upon furnishing necessary bail bond. The said order was challenged before this Court. In Hema Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. HEMA MISHRA VERSUS STATE OF UP 2014 (1) TMI 1771 - SUPREME COURT the Court was dealing with the power of the High Court of Allahabad pertaining to grant of pre-arrest bail in exercise of extraordinary or inherent jurisdiction and it is significant for in the State of Uttar Pradesh Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure has been deleted by the State Legislature - Be it noted that constitutional validity of the said deletion was challenged before the Constitution Bench in KARTAR SINGH VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB 1994 (3) TMI 379 - SUPREME COURT wherein it has been held that deletion of the application of Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure in the State of Uttar Pradesh is constitutional. Presently we can only say that the types of orders like the present one are totally unsustainable for it is contrary to the aforesaid settled principles and judicial precedents. It is intellectual truancy to avoid the precedents and issue directions which are not in consonance with law. 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. It should be borne in mind that the culture of adjudication is stabilized when intellectual discipline is maintained and further when such discipline constantly keeps guard on the mind. Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) by the High Court. 2. Restraint on the investigating agency not to arrest the accused during the investigation. 3. Parameters for quashing an FIR. 4. Grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC. 5. Judicial precedents and guidelines for the exercise of inherent powers. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Exercise of Inherent Powers Under Section 482 CrPC by the High Court: The core issue was whether the High Court, while refusing to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR, can direct the investigating agency not to arrest the accused during the investigation. The Supreme Court emphasized that inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC should be exercised sparingly and with caution, only when justified by the specific tests laid down in the provision. The Court noted that the High Court did not refer to the allegations in the FIR or the progress of the investigation, which was inappropriate. 2. Restraint on the Investigating Agency Not to Arrest the Accused During Investigation: The High Court's direction to the investigating agency not to arrest the accused amounted to an order under Section 438 CrPC (anticipatory bail) without satisfying the conditions of the said provision. The Supreme Court found this legally unacceptable, as it bypassed the statutory requirements for granting anticipatory bail. The Court reiterated that such directions are not sanctioned by law and should be avoided. 3. Parameters for Quashing an FIR: The Supreme Court referred to various precedents, including the Constitution Bench decision in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, which mandates the registration of an FIR if the information discloses the commission of a cognizable offense. The Court also cited Bhajan Lal's case, which provided illustrative circumstances where the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC could be exercised to quash an FIR. These include situations where the allegations do not constitute an offense, are absurd, or are manifestly attended with mala fide intentions. 4. Grant of Anticipatory Bail Under Section 438 CrPC: The Court discussed the principles governing the grant of anticipatory bail, as laid down in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab and other cases. It highlighted that anticipatory bail cannot be granted indirectly through orders that restrain arrest without following the statutory requirements. The Supreme Court disapproved of High Court orders that direct the release of accused on bail upon surrendering, as such directions contradict the established legal framework. 5. Judicial Precedents and Guidelines for the Exercise of Inherent Powers: The judgment extensively reviewed past decisions to underscore the limited and cautious use of inherent powers. The Court emphasized the need for judicial restraint and adherence to statutory commands. It criticized the High Court's order for deviating from established principles and creating confusion in the legal process. The Supreme Court reiterated that courts must act within the statutory framework and avoid issuing orders that undermine the judicial process. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and directed that the investigation should proceed in accordance with the law. It clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations in the FIR. The judgment serves as a reminder of the disciplined exercise of judicial powers and the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and judicial precedents.
|
