2021 (4) TMI 1244 - SC - Indian Laws

When to grant interim order - correct stage of granting the Interim Order - when and where the High Court would be justified in passing an interim order either staying the further investigation in the FIR/complaint or interim order in the nature of no coercive steps and/or not to arrest the Accused either pending investigation by the police/investigating agency or during the pendency of the quashing petition Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure and/or Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India pending before the High Court? HELD THAT - While dealing with the inherent powers of the High Court Under Section 561-A of the earlier Code (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. 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 under these Sections the police have the statutory right to investigate into the circumstances of any alleged cognizable offence - When the High Court would be justified in interfering with 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 - In the case of STATE OF ORISSA ORS. VERSUS UJJAL KUMAR BURDHAN 2012 (3) TMI 649 - SUPREME COURT it is observed and held by this Court that unless case of gross abuse of power is made out against those in charge of investigation the High Court should be loath to interfere at early/premature stage of investigation. Whether the High Court would be justified in granting stay of further investigation pending the proceedings Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure before it and in what circumstances the High Court would be justified? - HELD THAT - There may be some cases where the initiation of criminal proceedings may be an abuse of process of law. In such cases and only in exceptional cases and where it is found that non interference would result into miscarriage of justice the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure and/or Article 226 of the Constitution of India may quash the FIR/complaint/criminal proceedings and even may stay the further investigation. However the High Court should be slow in interfering the criminal proceedings at the initial stage i.e. quashing petition filed immediately after lodging the FIR/complaint and no sufficient time is given to the police to investigate into the allegations of the FIR/complaint which is the statutory right/duty of the police under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure - in exceptional cases when the High Court deems it fit regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law may pass appropriate interim orders as thought apposite in law however the High Court has to give brief reasons which will reflect the application of mind by the court to the relevant facts. Therefore even while passing such an interim order in exceptional cases with caution and circumspection the High Court has to give brief reasons why it is necessary to pass such an interim order more particularly when the 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 sought the 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 rather 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 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 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 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 be relegated to apply for anticipatory bail Under Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure before the competent court. The High Court shall not and as such is not justified in passing the order of not to arrest and/or no coercive steps either during the investigation or till the investigation is completed and/or till the final report/chargesheet is filed Under Section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure while dismissing/disposing of the quashing petition Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure 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 Code of Criminal Procedure 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. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the High Court's interim order of "no coercive measures" against the accused.
2. Statutory rights and duties of the police to investigate cognizable offences.
3. Parameters for the exercise of inherent powers by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. Legality of blanket orders restraining arrest during the pendency of investigation or quashing petitions.
5. The necessity of providing reasons for interim orders.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legitimacy of the High Court's Interim Order:

The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court was justified in passing an interim order directing "no coercive measures" against the accused during the pendency of the quashing petition. The Court noted that such blanket orders affect the statutory right and duty of the police to investigate cognizable offences. The interim order was deemed cryptic as it lacked any reasons for granting such extraordinary relief.

2. Statutory Rights and Duties of the Police:

The Court reiterated that the police have a statutory right and duty under Chapter XIV of the CrPC to investigate cognizable offences. This right should not be thwarted by judicial intervention unless it is evident that the investigation is being conducted malafidely or there is an abuse of power. The Court emphasized that the judiciary and the police have complementary functions, and interference in the investigation process should be minimal.

3. Parameters for Exercise of Inherent Powers:

The Court referred to several precedents, including the cases of R.P. Kapur and Bhajan Lal, to outline the parameters for the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC and Article 226 of the Constitution. These parameters include:
- The power should be exercised sparingly and in the rarest of rare cases.
- The Court should not embark on an inquiry into the merits of the allegations in the FIR/complaint.
- Criminal proceedings should not be scuttled at the initial stage.
- The Court must ensure that the investigation is not hampered.

4. Legality of Blanket Orders Restraining Arrest:

The Court strongly deprecated the practice of High Courts passing blanket orders of "no coercive steps" or "not to arrest" during the pendency of investigation or quashing petitions. Such orders were deemed legally unsustainable as they affect the police's right to investigate and may lead to a miscarriage of justice. The Court reiterated that anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC is the appropriate remedy for an accused apprehending arrest.

5. Necessity of Providing Reasons for Interim Orders:

The Court emphasized that any interim order, especially those restraining arrest or investigation, must contain brief reasons to reflect the application of judicial mind. This requirement ensures transparency and accountability in judicial decision-making and allows higher forums to understand the basis of such orders.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court quashed the High Court's interim order of "no coercive measures" against the accused, stating that such orders without reasons are unsustainable and affect the statutory duty of the police to investigate. The Court directed all High Courts to adhere to the principles laid down in this judgment and previous precedents, ensuring that the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC and Article 226 of the Constitution are exercised judiciously and sparingly. The judgment underscores the importance of maintaining a balance between the rights of the accused and the duty of the police to investigate cognizable offences.