Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed criminal appeals filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh against High Court orders that granted protection from arrest to three accused-respondents during investigation of an FIR alleging forgery in obtaining arms licences -- The High Court had disposed of their writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by refusing quashing but directing 90-day investigation completion and granting arrest protection till cognizance -- The Supreme Court set aside these orders, holding that such protection was not justified -- The investigation was to proceed without any arrest protection to the accused-respondents
Headnote
Criminal Law-- Constitution of India, 1950 -- Article 226 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 -- Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471-- Arms Act, 1959-- Sections 3, 25 and 30 -- Procure and use of armed license by submitting forged documents and false affidavits-- Complaints-- Investigation-- Further investigation-- Respondents/accused filed petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India before high court-- High court allowed the petitions and directed to the investigating officer to complete investigation in alleged offence within 90 days and also granted protection to the respondents as to not to arrest them-- Aggrieved-- Challenged by state in three appeals before supreme court-- Jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India discussed-- Availability of remedy in criminal law by invoking under Article 226 of Constitution of India-- Investigation of an offence is a long winding road-- Delay can be occurred in investigation-- Observations-- Cases referred-- Time bound investigation remain the exception rather than the norm-- Directions as to complete investigation within time limit set aside-- Error committed by the high court by relying upon the judgment of Shobhit Nehra (Supra)-- Directions as to not to arrest the respondents/accused also quashed and set aside-- Appeals allowed
Para-- 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17
Issue of Consideration
The Issue of whether the High Court was justified in granting protection from arrest to the accused-respondents during investigation while refusing to quash the FIR
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the State's appeals and set aside the impugned High Court orders -- The protection from arrest granted to accused-respondents was vacated -- The investigation was to proceed without any arrest protection
Law Points
- Quashing of FIR under Article 226 of the Constitution of India -- Protection from arrest during investigation -- Scope of High Court's power in criminal writ petitions -- Principles governing arrest in cognizable offences -- Article 21 of the Constitution of India -- Indian Penal Code
- 1860 (IPC) -- Arms Act
- 1959
Case Details
2025 LawText (SC) (12) 96
Criminal Appeal No. 5610 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 17272 of 2025), Criminal Appeal No. 5611 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 17579 of 2025), Criminal Appeal No. 5612 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 18150 of 2025)
SANJAY KAROL J. , NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH J.
Mohd Arshad Khan, Anr., Sanjay @Sanjay Kapoor, Muhammad Zaid Khan
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeals against High Court orders in writ petitions seeking quashing of FIR
Remedy Sought
State of Uttar Pradesh appealed to Supreme Court against High Court orders granting protection from arrest to accused-respondents during investigation
Filing Reason
High Court disposed of writ petitions by refusing quashing but granting arrest protection till cognizance, which State challenged as unwarranted
Previous Decisions
High Court disposed of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by directing 90-day investigation completion and granting protection from arrest till cognizance, relying on Shobhit Nehra v. State of U.P.
Issues
Whether the High Court was justified in granting protection from arrest to accused-respondents during investigation while refusing to quash the FIR
Whether such protection was warranted in cases involving allegations of forgery under IPC and Arms Act
Submissions/Arguments
State argued that High Court's grant of arrest protection was unwarranted and interfered with investigation
Accused-respondents sought quashing of FIR and protection from arrest based on High Court precedent in Shobhit Nehra case
Ratio Decidendi
High Court should not ordinarily grant protection from arrest during investigation when allegations disclose cognizable offences -- Such protection interferes with proper investigation process -- The precedent in Shobhit Nehra case was not appropriately applied to the present facts
Judgment Excerpts
The High Court explained that protection from arrest was justified because the case was still on the investigation stage and the allegations were not free from doubt
The Court observed that forcing the accused to seek anticipatory bail would be contrary to the spirit of Article 21 of the Constitution of India
Procedural History
FIR registered on 24th May 2025 under IPC and Arms Act -- Accused-respondents filed writ petitions before High Court seeking quashing -- High Court disposed of petitions on 4th July 2025, 16th June 2025 and 4th July 2025 respectively, granting arrest protection -- State appealed to Supreme Court -- Supreme Court granted leave and heard appeals
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 420, Section 467, Section 468, Section 471
- Arms Act, 1959: Section 3, Section 25, Section 30
