While Declining To Quash FIR, HC Should Not Direct Police To Follow S.41A CrPC Procedure : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has ruled that High Courts cannot, while rejecting a plea to quash FIR, direct the police to ensure compliance with Section 41A of the Cr.P.C. The Court explained that once an accused regularly appears in response to a notice under Section 41A, arrest is barred, and such a protection, being in the nature of interim relief, cannot be granted at the stage of considering quashing. “In a petition where quashing of the FIR is prayed for, the High Court should not have passed an order directing the Investigating Officer to comply with Section 41-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, “the Cr.PC) because it indirectly amounts to granting a relief which High Court could have considered only if a prima facie case for quashing of the FIR is made out.”, observed a bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Satish Chandra Sharma. Section 41A Cr.P.C. (equivalent to Section 35 BNSS) requires police to issue a written notice for appearance instead of arresting individuals for cognizable offenses where arrest isn't immediately necessary, preventing arbitrary arrests by mandating compliance and ensuring due process.The bench was hearing the case arising out of a Telangana High Court's order, which, while disposing of the accused persons' quashing petition, had directed the police to ensure compliance with Section 41A Cr.P.C. while directing the accused persons, i.e., Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, to appear before the police.Aggrieved by the High Court's order, the complainant approached the Supreme Court, contending that the quashing petition was decided without granting the complainant an opportunity to be heard, despite their presence. It was further argued that the direction to the police to comply with Section 41A Cr.P.C. effectively conferred impermissible interim protection upon the accused from arrest, contrary to the law laid down in Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401. Setting aside the impugned order, the order pronounced by Justice Pardiwala observed that the High Court erred in providing the interim relief to the accused persons while disposing of their quashing pleas, as it indirectly amounts to granting a relief which the High Court could have considered only if a prima facie case for quashing of the FIR is made out. According to the Court, no interim relief can be granted at the stage of proceedings under Section 482 CrPC before the petition is considered on merits, unless an exceptional case is established. Even then, the High Court must briefly record reasons explaining the basis and justification for granting such interim protection, as mandated in Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. (supra).Accordingly, the matter was remanded to the High Cour for fresh decision, after notice to the Defacto complainant, i.e., the appellant herein, to hear him and then pass the final order. Till then, no coercive steps shall be taken against the accused persons-respondent nos. 2 and 3, respectively.HeadnoteCriminal Procedure – Quashing of FIR – Validity of interim directions to follow arrest procedures – The Supreme Court set aside an order of the High Court of Telangana which, while disposing of a petition to quash an FIR on the very first day, directed the Investigating Officer to follow the procedure under Section 35(3) of the BNSS (previously Section 41-A Cr.PC) and the Arnesh Kumar guidelines without hearing the defacto complainant.Judicial Propriety – Right of Hearing – Held, that the High Court should not have entertained and disposed of the matter without issuance of notice to either the State or the Defacto Complainant – Noted that in petitions praying for the quashing of an FIR, the High Court should not pass orders directing compliance with Section 41-A Cr.PC (or Section 35(3) BNSS) as it indirectly amounts to granting relief that should only be considered if a prima facie case for quashing is established. [Relied on Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2021) 19 SCC 401; Paras 9-13]Cause Title: PRACTICAL SOLUTIONS INC. (THR. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE) VERSUS THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS.Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 74Click here to download orderAppearance: For Petitioner(s) :Mr. R. Basant, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kartik Venu, Adv. Mr. Siddhartha Iyer, AOR Mr. R. Jude Rohit, Adv. Mr. Arjan Ajai Singh Chonker, Adv. Mr. Naman Vashishtha, Adv. Mr. Aman Gupta, Adv. Ms. Srishti Ghoshal, Adv. Mr. Tonmoy Talukdar, Adv. For Respondent(s) :

While Declining To Quash FIR, HC Should Not Direct Police To Follow S.41A CrPC Procedure : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

While Declining To Quash FIR, HC Should Not Direct Police To Follow S.41A CrPC Procedure : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers