Supreme Court Sets Aside Blanket Arrest Protection in Criminal Case: Ravuri Krishna Murthy vs. State of Telangana (2021)

Date of the Judgment: March 5, 2021
Citation: (2021) INSC 142
Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and M.R. Shah, JJ.

Can a High Court grant blanket protection from arrest to an accused while refusing to quash criminal proceedings? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving allegations of fabricating judicial records. The Court held that such a direction is unsustainable in law and interferes with the investigation process. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising of Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and M.R. Shah, JJ.

Case Background

The case revolves around a land dispute in Telangana. The appellant, Ravuri Krishna Murthy, claimed ownership of land in Khammam District. He alleged that the first accused, engaged the second accused, his lawyer, to fabricate a sale deed for the property. The first accused then filed a suit for a perpetual injunction against the appellant based on this fabricated sale deed.

The appellant further alleged that the court records in the suit were tampered with to create a false ex-parte judgment and decree in favor of the first accused. The High Court had previously ordered an inquiry into the matter, which confirmed the fabrication of the judicial records. An FIR was registered against the accused.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh initially dismissed a petition to quash the FIR filed by the accused under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. However, while refusing to quash the FIR, the High Court granted a blanket order of protection from arrest to the second accused. The State filed a counter affidavit stating that the first accused was arrested and a charge sheet was filed against all three accused. The Supreme Court heard the appeal against the High Court’s order granting protection from arrest.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation of the following provisions:

• Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section deals with the inherent powers of the High Court to make orders to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice.
• Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section provides for the grant of anticipatory bail.
• Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section deals with the power of the High Court or the Court of Session to grant bail.
• Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section deals with the report of police officer on completion of investigation.
• Sections 420, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code: These sections deal with offences of cheating, forgery and using forged documents and acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

Arguments

The following arguments were made by the parties:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in passing a blanket direction restraining the police from arresting the third respondent (second accused) while refusing to quash the FIR under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court’s order restraining the arrest of the third respondent (second accused). The Court clarified that it did not interfere with the dismissal of the petition for quashing the FIR. The Court directed the third respondent to surrender before the competent court within two weeks and apply for regular bail.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with the High Court’s overreach in granting blanket protection from arrest without any legal basis. The Court emphasized the importance of allowing the investigation process to proceed without undue interference. The Court also highlighted the seriousness of the allegations, involving the tampering of judicial records.

The court’s decision was heavily influenced by the legal principle that an investigating agency should be allowed to carry out its duties without undue interference. The factual aspects of the case, such as the allegations of fabricating judicial records, were also considered, but the legal framework surrounding the powers of the High Court was the primary focus.

Logical Reasoning

The Supreme Court reasoned that the High Court’s order was not in aid of any further proceedings. The court noted that the High Court had already declined to quash the FIR and that the matter should have ended there. The court also noted that the accused had other remedies available under the Code of Criminal Procedure, such as applying for anticipatory bail under Section 438 or regular bail under Section 439.

The Supreme Court emphasized that a blanket direction of the nature issued by the High Court would completely dislocate the investigation and cause a serious obstruction in the enforcement of criminal justice. The court also noted that there was no justification in the order of the High Court for issuing such a direction.

The Supreme Court quoted from the judgment in The State of Telangana vs. Habib Abdullah Jeelani and Ors. (2017) 2 SCC 779, stating, “This direction “amounts” to an order Under Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure, albeit without satisfaction of the conditions of the said provision. This is legally unacceptable.”

The Court further observed, “It is absolutely inconceivable and unthinkable to pass an order of the present nature while declining to interfere or expressing opinion that it is not appropriate to stay the investigation. This kind of order is really inappropriate and unseemly. It has no sanction in law.”

The Court held, “The order restraining arrest was not in aid of further proceedings. Indeed, the proceedings were at an end once the High Court declined to quash the FIR.”

Key Takeaways

• A High Court cannot grant blanket protection from arrest while refusing to quash a criminal case.
• Such orders interfere with the investigation process and the enforcement of criminal justice.
• Accused persons have remedies under the Code of Criminal Procedure, such as anticipatory bail or regular bail, to protect their liberty.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the third respondent (second accused) to surrender before the competent court within two weeks and apply for regular bail. The court also directed that any such application should be considered after hearing the public prosecutor and bearing in mind the requirement of the investigating agency.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a High Court cannot grant blanket protection from arrest while refusing to quash a criminal case. This judgment reinforces the principle that the investigation process should not be unduly interfered with. The Supreme Court reiterated its previous position in The State of Telangana vs. Habib Abdullah Jeelani and Ors. (2017) 2 SCC 779, clarifying that such a direction amounts to an exercise of power under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, without satisfying the conditions stipulated under that section.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Ravuri Krishna Murthy vs. State of Telangana clarifies that High Courts cannot grant blanket protection from arrest when refusing to quash criminal proceedings. This decision ensures that the investigation process is not hampered and that accused persons must follow the established legal procedures for seeking bail. The judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to the legal framework and prevents judicial overreach.