2022 (8) TMI 1422 - SC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of Anticipatory Bail - grant of interim relief and staying the further proceedings of respective criminal inquiry cases against the respondents accused - HELD THAT - It appears that the learned Single Judge seems to be of the opinion that after giving reasons, the High Court can grant an interim stay of further investigation in a petition seeking quashing of the criminal complaint filed under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. The High Court has not properly appreciated the principles and the law laid down by this Court in the case of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 2021 (4) TMI 1244 - SUPREME COURT . What is emphasized by this Court in the case of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. is that grant of any stay of investigation and/or any interim relief while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be only in the rarest of rare cases. This Court has also emphasized the right of the Investigating Officer to investigate the criminal proceedings. There shall not be any interim relief during the pendency of the aforesaid special criminal applications. The Investigating Officer is directed to complete the investigation at the earliest and preferably within a period of three months from today and file appropriate report/charge sheet before the concerned Criminal Court having jurisdiction. Appeals are Allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of interim orders in criminal proceedings; Validity of interim relief granted by High Court; Applicability of Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 of Cr.P.C.; Rights of investigating agency in criminal proceedings; Consideration of previous judgments by the Supreme Court.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Supreme Court involved an appeal against an interim order passed by the High Court of Gujarat in criminal proceedings. The High Court had granted interim relief and stayed further proceedings and investigations in criminal cases against the accused. The appellant, the original complainant, challenged this order, leading to the present appeals.

The Special Criminal Applications before the High Court arose from FIRs initiated by the appellant. The accused had approached the High Court to quash the criminal proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Despite previous orders by the Supreme Court quashing interim orders, the High Court again granted interim relief, leading to the current appeals.

During the hearing, the State filed a Status Report indicating delays in the investigation, which had started only after specific Supreme Court orders. The investigating agency's rights to conduct investigations were emphasized, stating that halting proceedings should be rare and in the interest of justice.

The Senior Advocates for the accused did not contest the quashing of the interim order but requested suitable observations for the special criminal applications to be decided on their merits. The Supreme Court noted errors in the High Court's interpretation of previous judgments and emphasized the Investigating Officer's right to proceed with the criminal investigations.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's interim order and directed the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation promptly. The accused were allowed to seek anticipatory bail, as previously mentioned. The High Court was instructed to consider the special criminal applications based on their merits and the law.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, disposing of any pending applications. The judgment clarified the principles governing interim orders in criminal proceedings, emphasizing the importance of the investigating agency's rights and the limited circumstances for granting stays on investigations.