NEEHARIKA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2021] 4 S.C.R. 1044 · Decided: 13-04-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 14 judgment(s) · cites 20 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1044
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 4 S.C.R.
M/S NEEHARIKA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
(Criminal Appeal No. 330 of 2021)
APRIL 13, 2021
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD,
M. R. SHAH AND SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Constitution of
India – Article 226 – Quashing of FIR – Blanket interim orders of
stay of investigation and/or “no coercive steps to be adopted” during
pendency of quashing proceedings and/or u/Art.226 –
Impermissibility of – Held: Police has the statutory right and duty
to investigate into a cognizable offence – Save in exceptional cases,
the Court should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences
– When the investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy, the
High Court should restrain itself from passing the interim order of
not to arrest or “no coercive steps to be adopted” – FIR is not an
encyclopaedia disclosing all facts and details of the offence –
Therefore, when the investigation is in progress, the court should
not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR – Police must be
permitted to complete the investigation – Extraordinary and inherent
powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the
Court to act according to its whims or caprice – Power of quashing
should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in the ‘rarest of
rare cases’ (not to be confused with the formation in the context of
death penalty) – Even in a case where the High Court is prima facie
of the opinion that an exceptional case is made out for grant of
interim stay of further investigation, it has to give brief reasons
why such an order is warranted – In the present case, impugned
interim order passed by the High Court directing “no coercive
measures to be adopted” against the respondent nos. 2 to 4-accused,
set aside – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.406, 420, 465, 468, 471, 120B.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Constitution of
India – Article 226 – Quashing petitions u/s.482 or Article 226
dismissed – Orders passed by High Courts of not to arrest during
the pendency of the investigation – Held: Despite the law laid down
[2021] 4 S.C.R. 1044
1044
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1045
by Supreme Court deprecating such orders, many High Courts are
passing such orders – Law declared by Supreme Court is binding
on all the High Courts – High Courts cautioned against passing
such orders.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.340 r/w s.195 (1)(B) –
Petition under, filed by respondent nos.2 to 4-accused alleging that
the appellant suppressed vital agreements, facts and obtained interim
order by Supreme Court which stayed the impugned order passed
by High Court – Held: Interim order staying the impugned order
was passed by giving reasons – Further, even if the documents/
agreements alleged to have been suppressed would have been there,
it would not have any bearing on the interim order passed.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Before passing an interim order of staying
further investigation pending the quashing petition under Section
482 Cr.P.C. and/or Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the
High Court has to apply the very parameters which are required
to be considered while quashing the proceedings in exercise of
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction. In a given case, there may be allegations of abuse of
process of law by converting a civil dispute into a criminal dispute,
only with a view to pressurise the accused. Similarly, in a given
case the complaint itself on the face of it can be said to be barred
by law. The allegations in the FIR/complaint may not at all disclose
the commission of a cognizable offence. In such cases and in
exceptional cases with circumspection, the High Court may stay
the further investigation. However, at the same time, there may
be genuine complaints/FIRs and the police/investigating agency
has a statutory obligation/right/duty to enquire into the cognizable
offences. Therefore, a balance has to be struck between the rights
of the genuine complainants and the FIRs disclosing commission
of a cognizable offence and the statutory obligation/duty of the
investigating agency to investigate into the cognizable offences
on the one hand and those innocent persons against whom the
criminal proceedings are initiated which may be in a given case
abuse of process of law and the process. The High Court must
appreciate that speedy investigation is the requirement in the
c

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.