Date of the Judgment: 13 April 2021
Citation: (2021) INSC 203
Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, M.R. Shah, Sanjiv Khanna, JJ.
Can a High Court issue a blanket order preventing police from taking any coercive action against an accused during an investigation? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question, clarifying the extent of the High Court’s powers in criminal cases. This judgment arose from an appeal against an interim order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, which had restrained the police from taking any coercive measures against the accused in a case involving allegations of forgery and fraud. The Supreme Court, in this case, examined the limits of the High Court’s power to grant interim relief in criminal matters, particularly concerning the investigation process. The majority opinion was authored by Justice M.R. Shah, with Justices Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Sanjiv Khanna concurring.
Case Background
M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (the appellant) filed a First Information Report (FIR) against respondents 2 to 4 (the original accused) at Worli Police Station, Mumbai, on 19th September 2019. The FIR alleged offenses under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The allegations involved forgery and fabrication of a Board Resolution and the fraudulent sale of a property belonging to the appellant company.
The accused, apprehending arrest, filed an anticipatory bail application before the Sessions Court, Mumbai, which granted them interim protection from arrest. This interim protection was extended multiple times for nearly a year. While the anticipatory bail application was pending, the accused filed a petition before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay on 17th September 2020, seeking to quash the FIR.
On 28th September 2020, the High Court, while adjourning the matter, passed an interim order directing that “no coercive measures shall be adopted” against the accused. The High Court clarified that the Sessions Court should decide the anticipatory bail application on its own merits. The original complainant, feeling aggrieved by this interim order, filed the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 19th September 2019 | FIR lodged by M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. against respondents 2 to 4 at Worli Police Station, Mumbai. |
| Accused filed anticipatory bail application before the Sessions Court, Mumbai. | |
| Sessions Court granted interim protection from arrest to the accused. | |
| 17th September 2020 | Accused filed a petition before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay to quash the FIR. |
| 22nd September 2020 | The writ petition was listed for hearing before the Division Bench of the High Court. |
| 28th September 2020 | High Court passed an interim order directing that “no coercive measures shall be adopted” against the accused. |
Course of Proceedings
The original accused, after obtaining interim protection from arrest from the Sessions Court, filed a petition before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay seeking to quash the FIR. The High Court, on 28th September 2020, while adjourning the matter, passed an interim order directing that “no coercive measures shall be adopted” against the accused. The original complainant, feeling aggrieved by this interim order, filed the present appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court was asked to determine the legality of the High Court’s interim order.
Legal Framework
The case revolves around the interpretation of the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Article 226 of the Constitution of India, concerning the quashing of FIRs and the grant of interim relief during investigations.
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, deals with the inherent powers of the High Court. It states:
“Saving of inherent power of High Court.—Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”
Article 226 of the Constitution of India grants the High Courts the power to issue certain writs.
The Supreme Court also considered the statutory rights of the police to investigate cognizable offenses, as provided under Chapter XIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, particularly Section 154 (Information in cognizable cases) and Section 156 (Police officer’s power to investigate cognizable case).
The Supreme Court also referred to Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which deals with the grant of anticipatory bail.
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments (M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.):
- ✓ The High Court’s blanket order restraining the investigating officer from taking coercive measures was unwarranted.
- ✓ The accused were already enjoying interim protection from arrest from the Sessions Court.
- ✓ The accused were not cooperating with the investigation, and filing a quashing petition after a year of interim protection was an abuse of process.
- ✓ The High Court did not assign any reasons for passing such an interim order.
- ✓ The High Court should have considered that the accused were facing serious charges and the investigation was being conducted by the Economic Offences Wing.
- ✓ The blanket order hampered the investigating officer’s right to investigate the offenses.
- ✓ The power to quash an FIR under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should be exercised sparingly and in the rarest of rare cases.
- ✓ Even interim orders must be passed with regard to the parameters of quashing and self-restraint imposed by law.
- ✓ The High Court should have considered the allegations made in the FIR and what has come out in the investigation.
- ✓ If the accused apprehends arrest, the remedy is to file an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
- ✓ The High Court cannot pass a blanket order of no coercive steps without imposing any conditions.
- ✓ The High Court should have given reasons for staying the investigation or granting an order of “no coercive steps”.
Respondents’ Arguments (Original Accused):
- ✓ The allegations in the FIR were of a civil nature and the criminal proceedings were an abuse of process.
- ✓ The High Court has wide powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and Article 226 of the Constitution of India to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.
- ✓ The High Court can quash proceedings or stay investigations to prevent harassment.
- ✓ The powers to grant interim relief in a quashing petition are similar to the powers of a civil court under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
- ✓ Interim orders can be justified on the grounds of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss.
- ✓ The High Court can stay investigations in deserving cases, provided a speaking order is passed.
- ✓ The High Court can stay investigations if the criminal proceedings are an abuse of process or without jurisdiction.
| Main Submissions | Sub-Submissions by Appellant | Sub-Submissions by Respondents |
|---|---|---|
| Interim Order of “No Coercive Measures” |
✓ Not warranted given accused already had interim protection. ✓ No reasons provided by the High Court for such an order. ✓ Hampers investigation and statutory rights of police. |
✓ Justified to prevent harassment and abuse of process. ✓ High Court has wide powers to grant interim relief. ✓ Powers similar to civil court injunctions. |
| Quashing of FIR |
✓ Power to quash should be used sparingly and in rare cases. ✓ High Court should have considered the seriousness of the charges. |
✓ Criminal proceedings were an abuse of process and of a civil nature. ✓ High Court can quash proceedings to secure the ends of justice. |
| Investigation |
✓ Police have a statutory right to investigate cognizable offenses. ✓ High Court should not interfere with the investigation process. |
✓ High Court can stay investigations in deserving cases. ✓ Stay can be granted if the proceedings are an abuse of law. |
There was no innovativeness in the arguments by either side.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following principal issue:
- 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 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India pending before the High Court?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was justified in passing an interim order of “no coercive steps”? | Not justified. | The High Court’s order was a blanket order without assigning reasons, affecting the police’s statutory right to investigate and was passed without considering the parameters for quashing an FIR. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court relied on several key cases and legal provisions to arrive at its decision.
Cases Relied Upon by the Court:
| Authority | Court | How the Authority was Considered | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| King-Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad AIR 1945 PC 18 | Privy Council | Relied upon to emphasize that police have a statutory right to investigate cognizable crimes without judicial interference. | Statutory right of police to investigate. |
| R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 | Supreme Court of India | Cited for the proposition that the High Court’s inherent powers should be used sparingly and to prevent abuse of process. | Inherent powers of High Court. |
| Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana (1977) 4 SCC 451 | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon to emphasize that the High Court should not interfere with investigations at a premature stage. | Interference at premature stage. |
| State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy (2004) 6 SCC 522 | Supreme Court of India | Cited for the principle that inherent powers should be exercised sparingly and with caution. | Exercise of inherent powers. |
| Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque (2005) 1 SCC 122 | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon to highlight that the High Court should not stifle legitimate prosecution. | Stifling legitimate prosecution. |
| Sanapareday Maheedhar Seshagiri v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2007) 13 SCC 165 | Supreme Court of India | Cited for the principle that the High Court should be cautious in interfering with investigations. | Interference with investigation. |
| State of Andhra Pradesh v. Bajjoori Kanthaiah (2009)1 SCC 114 | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon to emphasize that the High Court should not stall investigations except in exceptional cases. | Stalling investigations. |
| State of Maharashtra v. Arun Gulab Gawali (2010) 9 SCC 701 | Supreme Court of India | Cited for the principle that the power to quash should be used sparingly. | Power to quash. |
| State of Orissa v. Ujjal Kumar Burdhan (2012) 4 SCC 547 | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon to state that the High Court should be loath to interfere at an early stage of investigation. | Interference at early stage. |
| State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 | Supreme Court of India | Heavily relied upon to establish the circumstances in which the High Court can quash an FIR/investigation. | Quashing of FIR/investigation. |
| Imtiyaz Ahmad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 2 SCC 688 | Supreme Court of India | Cited for the principle that the power to grant stay of investigation should be exercised sparingly. | Stay of investigation. |
| Ravuri Krishna Murthy v. The State of Telangana and others (Criminal Appeal Nos. 274-275 of 2021, decided on 05.03.2021) | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon to set aside a similar order of protection from arrest passed by the High Court. | Protection from arrest. |
| Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2018) 16 SCC 299 | Supreme Court of India | Cited for the principle that a speaking order must be passed when granting a stay. | Speaking order for stay. |
| State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy, (1977) 2 SCC 699 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to show that the High Court’s inherent powers are designed to prevent harassment. | Inherent powers to prevent harassment. |
| Rajiv Thapar V. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330 | Supreme Court of India | Cited for the step-wise inquiry required while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. | Step-wise inquiry under Section 482 Cr.P.C. |
| State of U.P. v. Mohammad Naim AIR 1964 SC 703 | Supreme Court of India | Cited in support of the wide powers of the High Court. | Wide powers of High Court. |
| State of Andhra Pradesh v. Gourishetty Mahesh (2010) 11 SCC 226 | Supreme Court of India | Cited in support of the wide powers of the High Court. | Wide powers of High Court. |
| Vijeta Gajra v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 11 SCC 618 | Supreme Court of India | Cited in support of the wide powers of the High Court. | Wide powers of High Court. |
| State of Maharashtra v. Sanjay Dalmia, (2015) 17 SCC 539 | Supreme Court of India | Cited in support of the wide powers of the High Court. | Wide powers of High Court. |
| Amish Devgan v. Union of India, (2021) 1 SCC 1 | Supreme Court of India | Cited in support of the wide powers of the High Court. | Wide powers of High Court. |
| State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha, (1980) 1 SCC 554 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to emphasize the separation of powers between the police and judiciary. | Separation of powers. |
| Union of India v. Prakash P. Hinduja, (2003) 6 SCC 195 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to state that courts should not interfere with investigation. | Non-interference with investigation. |
| Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (1999) 8 SCC 728 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to show that courts should not interfere with investigations if an offense is disclosed. | Non-interference with investigations. |
| Supdt. of Police, CBI v. Tapan Kumar Singh, (2003) 6 SCC 175 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to state that an FIR is not an encyclopedia. | FIR not an encyclopedia. |
| State of U.P. v. Naresh, (2011) 4 SCC 324 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to state that an FIR is not an encyclopedia. | FIR not an encyclopedia. |
| P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to highlight the powers of the investigating agency. | Powers of investigating agency. |
| Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 958 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to state that courts should not thwart any investigation. | Non-interference with investigation. |
| Hema Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 4 SCC 453 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to state that the High Court has wide powers under Article 226. | High Court powers under Article 226. |
| Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse, (2004) 3 SCC 440 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to highlight the importance of giving reasons while passing interim orders. | Importance of reasons for interim orders. |
| Nitco Tiles Ltd. v. Gujarat Ceramic Floor Tiles Mfg. Association, (2005) 12 SCC 454 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to highlight the importance of giving reasons while passing interim orders. | Importance of reasons for interim orders. |
| Hindustan Times Limited v. Union of India, (1998) 2 SCC 242 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to highlight the importance of giving reasons by the High Court. | Importance of reasons by High Court. |
| Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed, (2010) 9 SCC 496 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to highlight the importance of giving reasons in decision making. | Importance of reasons in decision making. |
| State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma [State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 192] | Supreme Court of India | Cited to highlight the role of the investigating officer. | Role of the investigating officer. |
| Dukhishyam Benupani v. Arun Kumar Bajoria [Dukhishyam Benupani v. Arun Kumar Bajoria , (1998) 1 SCC 52 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 261] | Supreme Court of India | Cited to state that it is not the function of the court to monitor investigation processes. | Non-interference in investigation processes. |
| S.M. Datta v. State of Gujarat (2001) 7 SCC 659 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to state that criminal proceedings should not be scuttled at the initial stage. | Non-interference in criminal proceedings. |
| S.M. Sharma v. Bipen Kumar Tiwari, (1970) 1 SCC 653 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to show that the High Court can issue a writ of mandamus if the power of investigation has been exercised mala fide. | High Court can issue a writ of mandamus if the power of investigation has been exercised mala fide. |
| State of Kerala v. O.C. Kuttan [(1999) 2 SCC 651 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 304 : JT (1999) 1 SC 486] | Supreme Court of India | Cited to state that the power of quashing the criminal proceedings should be exercised very sparingly. | Power of quashing the criminal proceedings should be exercised very sparingly. |
| State of U.P. v. O.P. Sharma [(1996) 7 SCC 705 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 497 : JT (1996) 2 SC 488] | Supreme Court of India | Cited to state that the High Court should be loath to interfere at the threshold to thwart the prosecution. | High Court should be loath to interfere at the threshold to thwart the prosecution. |
| Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada [(1997) 2 SCC 397 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 415 : JT (1996) 11 SC 175] | Supreme Court of India | Cited to state that such power should be sparingly and cautiously exercised only when the court is of the opinion that otherwise there will be gross miscarriage of justice. | Such power should be sparingly and cautiously exercised. |
| Habib Abdullah Jeelani (supra) | Supreme Court of India | Cited to state that it is absolutely inconceivable and unthinkable to pass an order directing the police not to arrest till the investigation is completed while declining to interfere or expressing opinion that it is not appropriate to stay the investigation. | It is absolutely inconceivable and unthinkable to pass an order directing the police not to arrest till the investigation is completed while declining to interfere or expressing opinion that it is not appropriate to stay the investigation. |
Legal Provisions Considered by the Court:
- ✓ Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Inherent powers of the High Court.
- ✓ Article 226 of the Constitution of India: Powers of the High Court to issue certain writs.
- ✓ Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Information in cognizable cases.
- ✓ Section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Police officer’s power to investigate cognizable case.
- ✓ Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Grant of anticipatory bail.
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Party | Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Appellant (M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.) | High Court’s interim order was unwarranted and hampered investigation. | Accepted. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s blanket order was unsustainable. |
| Respondent (Original Accused) | High Court has wide powers to grant interim relief and stay investigation. | Partially accepted. The Supreme Court acknowledged the High Court’s powers but emphasized the need for restraint and reasoned orders. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- ✓ The Supreme Court relied on King-Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad [AIR 1945 PC 18]* to emphasize the statutory right of the police to investigate cognizable crimes without judicial interference.
- ✓ The Court followed the principles laid down in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab [AIR 1960 SC 866]* and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335]* regarding the limitations on the High Court’s inherent powers and the circumstances under which an FIR can be quashed.
- ✓ The Court also relied on State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha [(1980) 1 SCC 554]* to highlight the separation of powers between the police and the judiciary.
- ✓ The Supreme Court reiterated the principles laid down in the case of Habib Abdullah Jeelani (supra)* that it is absolutely inconceivable and unthinkable to pass an order directing the police not to arrest till the investigation is completed while declining to interfere or expressing opinion that it is not appropriate to stay the investigation.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to balance the rights of the accused with the statutory duty of the police to investigate cognizable offenses. The Court emphasized that the High Court’s power to grant interim relief should be exercised judiciously and with restraint, particularly when it involves interfering with an ongoing investigation.
| Sentiment Analysis | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Need to uphold the statutory duty of police to investigate cognizable offenses | 30% |
| Importance of restraint and circumspection while exercising inherent powers | 25% |
| Necessity of reasoned orders for interim relief | 20% |
| Balancing the rights of the accused with the need for effective investigation | 15% |
| Deprecating the practice of passing blanket orders of “no coercive measures” | 10% |
Fact:Law Ratio:
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on legal principles and precedents, with a lesser emphasis on the specific facts of the case.
Logical Reasoning
Final Order
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned interim order passed by the High Court. The Court directed the High Court to decide the quashing petition on its own merits, without being influenced by the observations made by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court also directed the investigating officer to proceed with the investigation.
Ratio Decidendi
The ratio decidendi of the judgment is that the High Court should not pass blanket orders of “no coercive steps” without assigning reasons and without considering the statutory rights of the police to investigate cognizable offenses. The High Court’s power to grant interim relief should be exercised judiciously and with restraint, particularly when it involves interfering with an ongoing investigation. The High Court should also not stall an investigation or grant an order of “no coercive steps” without imposing any conditions.
Obiter Dicta
The Supreme Court made several observations which are considered obiter dicta. These include:
- ✓ The power to quash an FIR under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should be exercised sparingly and in the rarest of rare cases.
- ✓ Even interim orders must be passed with regard to the parameters of quashing and self-restraint imposed by law.
- ✓ The High Court should have considered the allegations made in the FIR and what has come out in the investigation.
- ✓ If the accused apprehends arrest, the remedy is to file an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
- ✓ The High Court should have given reasons for staying the investigation or granting an order of “no coercive steps”.
- ✓ The High Court should be loath to interfere at the threshold to thwart the prosecution.
Analysis
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra is a significant pronouncement on the limits of the High Court’s power to grant interim relief in criminal cases. The judgment clarifies that while the High Court has wide powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and Article 226 of the Constitution of India, these powers must be exercised judiciously and with restraint. The judgment emphasizes that the High Court should not interfere with the statutory right of the police to investigate cognizable offenses, and that interim orders should be passed only in exceptional cases and with proper reasoning.
The judgment also highlights the importance of balancing the rights of the accused with the need for effective investigation. The Court’s decision underscores that the High Court cannot grant blanket orders of “no coercive measures” without assigning reasons and without considering the parameters for quashing an FIR.
The judgment is likely to have a significant impact on the way High Courts deal with quashing petitions and interim relief in criminal cases. It serves as a reminder to High Courts that their powers are not unlimited and that they must exercise restraint when interfering with the investigation process.
The judgment reinforces the principle that the police have a statutory duty to investigate cognizable offenses, and that this duty should not be hampered by unwarranted judicial interference.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra provides much-needed clarity on the limits of the High Court’s power to grant interim relief in criminal cases. The judgment emphasizes the need for restraint and reasoned orders, particularly when it involves interfering with an ongoing investigation. The Court’s decision underscores the importance of balancing the rights of the accused with the statutory duty of the police to investigate cognizable offenses. This judgment is a landmark decision that will have a lasting impact on the way High Courts deal with quashing petitions and interim relief in criminal cases.