RAVURI KRISHNA MURTHY versus THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2021] 2 S.C.R. 986 · Decided: 05-03-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
986
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 2 S.C.R.
RAVURI KRISHNA MURTHY
v.
THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 274 – 275 of 2021)
MARCH 05, 2021
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Blanket order
of protection from arrest – Sustainability of – The High Court stayed
all the proceedings in a suit OS No. 274 of 2014 and directed the
District Collector, to submit report in respect of allegation involving
fabrication of the judgment and decree dated 11.11.2014 in the
said suit – The District Collector conducted an enquiry and submitted
a report to the High Court, stating that the decree as well as the
judgment were fabricated and no such decree was passed by the
Sub-Divisional Magistrate in OS No. 274 of 2014 on 11.11.2014 –
The High Court directed the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to take
necessary action on the administrative side – FIR was registered u/
ss. 420, 468 and 471 r/w. 34 IPC – Second and third respondents
were served with notices u/s.41A of the Cr.P.C. – This was followed
by the proceedings before the High Court for the quashing of the
FIR – The High Court dismissed the petition filed by the second and
third respondents u/s. 482 Cr.P.C.– While the High Court did not
grant relief to the second respondent, it issued a final direction,
restraining the arrest of the third respondent – The second
respondent was arrested and produced before the Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate – Whether the High Court was justified in passing a
blanket direction of restraining the police from arresting the third
respondent, while at the same time having come to the conclusion
that there was no merit in the petition for quashing u/s. 482 – Held:
The High Court was justified in declining to exercise its jurisdiction
u/s. 482 and, therefore, rejected the application for quashing the
proceedings – Equally, there was no basis or justification for
directing that the third respondent should not be arrested and that
the Investigating Officer must complete the investigation and file a
final report u/s.173 Cr.P.C. without arresting the third respondent –
Such a direction by the High Court has the effect of impeding the
[2021] 2 S.C.R. 986
986
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
987
course of the investigation and has no basis or justification in law
– A person in the position of the third respondent has remedies
available under the Code of Criminal Procedure to protect his liberty
by either seeking anticipatory bail u/s. 438 Cr.P.C. or applying for
regular bail u/s. 439 – A blanket direction of the nature which was
issued by the High Court would completely dislocate the investigation
and cause a serious obstruction in the enforcement of criminal justice
– The said direction of the High Court is unsustainable in law – The
impugned judgment and order of the High Court, insofar as it
restrains the Investigating Officer from arresting the third respondent
is set aside.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The High Court was of the view that (i) the truth
of the allegations was a matter which had to be ascertained by
the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation; and
(ii) in view of the seriousness of the allegations, no relief was
being granted to the second respondent (the first accused).
However, the High Court proceeded to issue a blanket restraint
against the arrest of the third respondent (the second accused)
by directing that the police would complete the investigation and
file a final report in accordance with law. This Court is affirmatively
of the view that the direction of the High Court is unsustainable
in law. The narration in the earlier part of the judgment would
indicate that the registration of the FIR was preceded by a report
submitted by the Collector to the High Court which had mandated
an enquiry into the allegation in regard to the fabrication of a
judicial record. It was pursuant to the report filed by the Collector,
that the High Court directed the Sub Divisional Magistrate to
proceed on the administrative side in accordance with law. An
FIR has been registered involving a serious allegation in regard
to the fabrication of judicial records. [Para 8][991-E-G; 992-A]
2. The High Court was justified in declining to exercise its
jurisdiction under Section 482 and, therefore, rejected the
application for quashing the proceedings. Equally, there was no
basis or justification for directing that the third respondent should
not be arrested and that the In

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