9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether arrest during investigation can be stayed by the High Court only in rarest of rare cases or according to the criteria laid down by the Supreme Court in Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2. Whether the Full Bench in Satyapal's case was right in holding that Joginder Kumar's case was delivered on its own peculiar facts and circumstances and hence does not lay down any legal principles relating to the power of arrest and the power of stay to arrest by the High Court. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether arrest during investigation can be stayed by the High Court only in rarest of rare cases or according to the criteria laid down by the Supreme Court in Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. and Ors. The court affirmed that the judgment in Satyapal's case lays down the correct law, which states that the power to stay arrest should be exercised only in the rarest of rare cases. The court reiterated that the powers of investigation fall within the exclusive domain of the police and that courts cannot intervene unless the police act wholly without jurisdiction or there is a statutory restriction on investigation. The court cited several precedents, including *State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal* and *H.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi*, to support the principle that the judiciary should not interfere with police investigations unless there is a clear overreach or statutory violation. 2. Whether the Full Bench in Satyapal's case was right in holding that Joginder Kumar's case was delivered on its own peculiar facts and circumstances and hence does not lay down any legal principles relating to the power of arrest and the power of stay to arrest by the High Court. The court held that the observations in Joginder Kumar's case are directed at the police and do not confer any powers on the High Court to quash an FIR or stay the arrest simply because the case is of a minor nature or the investigation has not produced significant material at that stage. The court clarified that Joginder Kumar's case dealt with the power of the police to arrest and the guidelines for the circumstances under which an arrest should be made, emphasizing that no arrest should be made without reasonable satisfaction as to the genuineness of the complaint. The court further noted that the Full Bench in Satyapal's case correctly interpreted that Joginder Kumar's case did not affect the powers of the High Court in interfering with investigations. Additional Observations: Scope of Police Powers of Investigation and Court's Powers: The court emphasized that arrest is a part of the investigation and courts should not interfere unless there is a clear overreach by the police. It cited various judgments, including *State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal* and *M.C. Abraham v. State of Maharashtra*, to affirm that the police have unfettered powers to investigate cognizable offenses within legal bounds. Audi Alteram Partem Rule or Right of Accused to Notice at Investigation Stage: The court observed that the rule of audi alteram partem does not apply at the stage of investigation and initial arrest in a cognizable case. The accused has no right to notice or hearing before arrest. Scope of Interference under Article 226 of the Constitution: The court reiterated that the power to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, only in the rarest of rare cases. It cited several judgments, including *Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate* and *State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal*, to support this principle. Quashing of FIR Because Dispute is of Civil Nature: The court noted that in cases where the dispute is purely of a civil nature, criminal proceedings should not be initiated. It cited judgments like *Trilok Singh v. Satya Deo Tripathi* and *Charanjit Singh Chadha v. Sudhir Mehra* to support this view. Defence and Investigational Material Not to be Considered at This Stage: The court held that at the stage of considering a case for quashing criminal proceedings, the reliability or genuineness of the allegations made in the FIR should not be examined. It cited *Savita v. State of Rajasthan* and *State of T.N. v. Thirukkural Perumal* to support this principle. Quashing of FIR - Because of Cross-Cases: The court observed that the pendency of cross-cases in respect of the same incident cannot be a sole ground for interference with criminal proceedings. It cited *Jagdish Yadav v. Ram Nandan Yadav* and *Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash* to support this view. Scope of Article 141 and Law of Precedents: The court emphasized that the law laid down by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts in the country, but the decision must be read in the context of the specific statutory provisions interpreted by the court. It cited several judgments, including *H.H. Maharajadhiraja Madhav Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia Bahadur v. Union of India* and *Union of India v. Chajju Ram*, to support this principle. Final Disposal of Cases at Initial Stage: The court cautioned against disposing of petitions on the very first day without issuing notice to the complainant and giving the state an opportunity to respond. It cited *Manjit Kaur v. State of Punjab* and *State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta* to support this view. Conclusion: The court concluded that the Full Bench in Satyapal's case correctly interpreted the law and that the observations in Joginder Kumar's case do not apply to the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings or stay arrests. The petition was dismissed as infructuous since the investigation had been completed and the charge sheet had been filed.
|
