High Courts Can't Pass 'Not To Arrest' Or 'No Coercive Steps' Orders While Dismissing/Disposing Petitions U/s 482 CrPC: Supreme Court

The High Court while dismissing/disposing of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India., shall not pass order of not to arrest and/or "no coercive steps" either during the investigation or till the investigation is completed and/or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., the Supreme Court held."We caution the High Courts again against passing such orders of not to arrest or "no coercive steps to be taken" till the investigation is completed and the final report is filed, while not entertaining quashing petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or Article 226 of the Constitution of India", the Supreme Court held in the case Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra.The bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud, MR Shah and Sanjiv Khanna observed that when the investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy and the entire evidence/material is not before the High Court, the High Court should restrain itself from passing the interim order of not to arrest or "no coercive steps to be adopted" and the accused should be relegated to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the competent court.The court issued the following guidelines explaining when and where the High Court would be justified in passing an interim order either staying the further investigation in the FIR/complaint or interim order in the nature of "no coercive steps" and/or not to arrest the accused either pending investigation by the police/investigating agency or during the pendency of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India pending before the High Court.Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence; Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences; It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on; The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the 'rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty). While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule; Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere; The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping; Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences; Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice; The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police 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. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure; The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court; However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint; When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and...

High Courts Can't Pass 'Not To Arrest' Or 'No Coercive Steps' Orders While Dismissing/Disposing Petitions U/s 482 CrPC: Supreme Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

High Courts Can't Pass 'Not To Arrest' Or 'No Coercive Steps' Orders While Dismissing/Disposing Petitions U/s 482 CrPC: Supreme Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers