THE STATE OF TELANGANA versus HABIB ABDULLAH JEELANI & ORS.

Citation: [2017] 1 S.C.R. 141 · Decided: 06-01-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 6 judgment(s) · cites 14 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] l S.C.R. 141 
THE STATE OF TELANGANA 
v. 
HABIB ABDULLAH JEELANl & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1144of2016) 
JANUARY 06, 2017 
(DIPAK MISRA AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure,· 197 3 - s. 482 - Inherent power 
of High Court - Interference in investigation - Scope of - High 
Court refused to quash the FIR and consequential investigation, 
but passed an order that if the accused person surrenders before 
the trial magistrate he shall be admitted to bail - Held: While 
declining to quash FIR and investigation, Court cannot extend the 
privilege to.accused person which is in nature of an anticipatory 
bail - High Court's direction amou/lfed to an order uls.438 CrPC, 
albeit ll'ithout satisfaction of the conditions of.the said provision -
This is legally unsustainable - Constitution of India - Art. 226 -
Bail. 
\ 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482 - Exercise of 
power, scope - Held: The power u/s. 482 CrPC is very wide, but 
conferment of wide powers requires the court to be more cautious -
It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the Court - Courts · 
should oust and obstruct unscrupulous litigants from invoking the 
inherent jurisdiction of the Court for quashing of launching an 
FIR or investigation and then seek relief by an interim order - It is 
the obligation of the court t; keep such unprincipled and unethicai 
litigants at bay - Administration of Criminal Justice. 
Precedents: Binding effect of - Held: It is intellectual truancy 
to avoid ihe precedents and issue directions which are not in 
consonance with /m1• - It is the duty of a Judge to sustain the judicial · 
balance and not to think of an order which can cause trauma to the 
process ·of adjudication - Culture of adjudication is stabilized when 
·intellectual discipline is maintained and further when such discipline 
constantly keeps guard on the mind. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
HELD: In the instant case, the High Court did not refer to 
H 
141 
142 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] l S.C.R. 
allegations made in the FIR or what has come out i·n the 
investigation. It correctly noted that the investigation is in 
progress and it is not appropriate to stay the investigation of the 
case. It disposed of the application under Section 482 CrPC, 
however while doing that it directed that the investigating agency 
shall not arrest the accused persons. This direction "amounts" 
to an order under Section 438 CrPC, albeit without satisfaction of 
the conditions of the said provision. This is legally unacceptable. 
Such directions would not commend acceptance, for they neither 
come within the sweep of Article 226 of the Constitution of India 
nor Section 482 CrPC nor Section 438 Cr PC. The types of orders 
like present one, are totally unsustainable. [Paras 15, 24, 25) 
(151-E-F; 157-A-B) 
Hazari Lal Gupta v. Rameshwar Prasad (1972) 1 SCC 
452 : (1972) 2 SCR 666; Jehan Singh v. Delhi 
Administration AIR 1974 SC 1146 : [1974) 3 SCR 
794; Amar Nath 1: State of Haryana (1977) 4 SCC 137: 
[1978) 1 SCR 222; Kurukshetra University v. State of 
Haryana (1977) 4 SCC 451; State of Bihar v. J.A.C. 
Sa/danha AIR 1980 SC 326 : (1980) 2 SCR 16; State 
of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha AIR 1982 SC 
949 : (1982) 3 SCR 121; Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna 
Shivalingappa Konjalgi AIR 1976 SC 1947 : (1976) 
Suppl. SCR 123; Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. 
Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre (1988) 1 SCC 692·: 
· [1988) 2 SCR 930; State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan 
(1988) 4 SCC 655 ~ [1988) 3 Suppl. SCR 455 ; Rashmi 
Rekha Thatoi and Anr. 
v. State of Orissa and Ors. 
(2012) 5 SCC 690 : (2012] 5 SCR 674; Gurbaksh 
Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565 : 
[1980) 3 SCR 383; Ranjit Singh v. State of Madhya 
Pradesh· and Ors. (2013) 16 SCC 797 : (2013) 11 
SCR 273 - relied on. 
King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad AIR 1945 PC 
~-18; Lolita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and 
Ors. (2014) 2 SCC 1 : [2013] 14 SCR 713; State of 
Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors. AIR 1992 
SC 604 : (1990] 3 Suppl. SCR 259; Jacob Mathew v. 
THE STATE OF TELANGANA v. HABIB ABDULLAH JEELANI 
143 
& ORS. 
State of Punjab (2005) 6 SCC 1 : [2005] 2 Suppl. 
SCR 307; P. Sirajuddin v. State of Madras (1970) 1 
SCC 595 : [1970] 3 SCR 931; CBI '" Tapan Kumar 
Singh (2003) 6 SCC 175 : [2003] 3 SCR 485; Hema 
Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2014) 4 SCC 
453 : [2014] 1 SCR 465; Kartar Singh v. State of 
Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 5
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.