S. 482 CrPC | HC Should Not Grant 'No Arrest' Protection & Set Investigation Deadlines While Refusing To Quash FIR : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court set aside the Allahabad High Court's order which while declining to quash an FIR, simultaneously imposed a fixed timeline for completion of investigation and protection from arrest to the accused until cognizance is taken.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh referred to the decision of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401, to observe that granting "no arrest" or "no coercive steps" orders while dismissing a quashing petition is tantamount to granting anticipatory bail without applying the strict legal tests for it. Such orders are "inconceivable and unthinkable."

“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.”, the judgment authored by Justice Karol quoted the observation from the Neeharika Infrastructure (supra).

The matter arose from an FIR registered in Agra in May 2024 following an STF investigation. The accused were alleged to have fraudulently obtained multiple arms licences by submitting forged Aadhaar cards, PAN cards and affidavits, and by falsifying dates of birth to project themselves as skilled marksmen. One of the accused was a retired Arms Clerk allegedly involved in facilitating the process. The FIR invoked serious offences under the IPC, including Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471, along with provisions of the Arms Act.

Challenging the FIR, the accused approached the Allahabad High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. While the High Court refused to quash the FIR, it passed identically worded orders directing the investigating officer to complete the investigation within 90 days and granting the accused protection from arrest until cognizance was taken by the trial court. These directions were based on the High Court's earlier decision in Shobhit Nehra v. State of U.P.

Aggrieved, the State approached the Supreme Court referencing Neeharika Infrastructure (supra).

Setting aside the impugned order, the Court held that the High Courts cannot grant “no arrest” or “no coercive steps” directions while refusing to quash an FIR. It noted that such orders are tantamount to granting anticipatory bail without satisfying the statutory requirements under Section 438 Cr.P.C., and against the principle decided in Neeharika Infrastructure.

Regarding the time-lime imposed by the High Court for the investigation, the bench noted that imposing a deadline at the threshold, without any evidence of delay, was held to be premature and an encroachment upon executive functions. The Court clarified that judicially imposed timelines can be directed only in exceptional circumstances only when there is material on record demonstrating undue delay or stagnation in investigation.

“timelines are not drawn by the Court to be followed by the investigators/the executive right from the beginning, for that would clearly amount to stepping on the toes of the latter. Timelines are therefore imposed at a point where not doing so would have adverse consequences i.e., there is material on record demonstrating undue delays, stagnation, or the like. In sum, timelines are imposed reactively and not prophylactically. As such, the timelines imposed by the High Court need to be interfered with and set aside.”, the court observed.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the Court set aside both the 90-day investigation deadline and the blanket protection from arrest granted by the High Court.

Cause Title: STATE OF U.P. & ANR. Versus MOHD ARSHAD KHAN & ANR

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1243

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Ruchira Goel, AOR

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pradeep Kumar Rai, Sr. Adv. Ms. Farhat Naim, Adv. Mrs. Rajshree Rai, Adv. Mr. Vinay Kumar Rai, Adv. Ms. Modoyia Kayina, Adv. Mr. Shreyansh Singh, Adv. Mr. Paras Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Parimal Rai, Adv. Mr. Ujjwal Singh Parmar, Adv. Ms. Neha Raj Singh, Adv. Mr. Virendra Singh, Adv. Mr. Harish Gupta, Adv. M/S R And R Law Associates, AOR Mr. Anil Kumar, AOR Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Adv. Mr. Sudip Patra, Adv. Ms. Santosh, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Kumar, Adv. Mr. Yogesh Kumar Goel, Adv. Mr. Prashant Singh, Adv. Ms. Amrita Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Kameshwar Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Babbar, Adv. Ms. Suvarna Swain, Adv. Mr. Yashwant Singh, AOR