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 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 Investigating Officer must complete the investigation and file a final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure without arresting the third respondent. Such a direction by the High Court has the effect of impeding the course of the investigation and has no basis or justification in law. The petition under section 482 was for quashing the FIR. The High Court found no substance in the petition. The matter should have ended there. The order restraining arrest was not in aid of further proceedings. Indeed, the proceedings were at an end once the High Court declined to quash the FIR. 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 under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 or applying for regular bail under Section 439. A blanket direction of the nature which has been issued by the High Court would completely dislocate the investigation and cause a serious obstruction in the enforcement of criminal justice. Such an order ought not to have been passed by the High Court. What compounds matters is that there is not a word in justification in the order of the High Court for issuing such a direction. The High Court has been oblivious to the serious nature of the allegations, involving the tampering of a judicial record. This Court disapproves of the course followed by the High Court. It has no foundation in law. [Para 10][993-B-F] The State of Telangana vs. Habib Abdullah Jeelani and Ors. (2017) 2 SCC 779 : [2017] 1 SCR 141 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.