Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from an interim order dated 28.09.2020 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in a writ petition filed by the accused under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash FIR No. 367/2019. The High Court directed that 'no coercive measures shall be adopted' against the accused. The original complainant, M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., appealed to the Supreme Court, aggrieved by this order. The FIR involved allegations under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, pertaining to forgery and fraudulent sale of property. The accused had previously obtained interim protection from arrest in an anticipatory bail application before the Sessions Court, which was extended for nearly a year. During this pendency, they filed the quashing petition, and the High Court passed the impugned order without assigning reasons, while clarifying that the Sessions Court should decide the anticipatory bail application on merits. The appellant argued that the blanket order was unwarranted, hampered investigation, and was passed without application of mind, citing precedents like State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani. The respondents' arguments were not detailed in the provided text. The Supreme Court analyzed the principles governing the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and Article 226, emphasizing that such powers must be used sparingly and with circumspection. The Court held that interim orders like 'no coercive measures' require careful consideration of facts, allegations, and investigation progress, with reasons recorded. It noted that the appropriate remedy for apprehension of arrest is anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., and blanket orders without conditions are impermissible as they interfere with police investigation. The Court found the High Court's order lacking in reasons and passed mechanically, thus setting it aside. The decision underscores the need for judicial restraint in interfering with investigation and the importance of reasoned orders in interim protections.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of FIR - Interim Orders - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 482 and Constitution of India, Article 226 - The Supreme Court considered the legality of a High Court's interim order directing 'no coercive measures' against accused in a quashing petition. The Court held that such interim orders must be passed sparingly, with circumspection, and only after applying the mind to the facts and allegations, with reasons recorded. Blanket orders without conditions are impermissible as they hamper investigation. The High Court's order was set aside as it lacked reasons and was passed mechanically. (Paras 1-3) B) Criminal Procedure - Anticipatory Bail - Appropriate Remedy - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 438 - The Court emphasized that when an accused apprehends arrest, the proper remedy is to file an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., which must be granted within the parameters of that provision. Interim protection in quashing petitions should not bypass these conditions. The High Court's order was criticized for granting protection without satisfying Section 438 conditions. (Paras 2.1-2.2) C) Criminal Procedure - Investigation - Judicial Interference - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The Supreme Court reiterated that the power of police to investigate cognizable offences should not ordinarily be interfered with by the judiciary. Interim orders like 'no coercive measures' can affect the investigating agency's right to investigate, and such interference is only warranted in exceptional cases to prevent miscarriage of justice. The High Court's order was found to improperly hamper investigation. (Paras 3.5-3.9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in passing an interim order directing 'no coercive measures shall be adopted' against the accused in a quashing petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C., without assigning reasons and while an anticipatory bail application was pending.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the impugned interim order dated 28.09.2020 passed by the High Court, holding that it was passed without reasons and was impermissible as a blanket order without conditions.
Law Points
- Exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and Article 226 of the Constitution of India must be sparing and circumspect
- interim orders like 'no coercive measures' require application of mind and reasons
- blanket orders without conditions are impermissible
- police investigation should not ordinarily be interfered with
- anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is the appropriate remedy for apprehension of arrest
