Don’t stay arrest in criminal cases in routine manner, SC tells high courts

Satya Prakash

Tribune News Service

New Delhi, April 13

Taking exception to high courts passing orders staying arrest and coercive action against accused in cognizable offences in a routine manner, the Supreme Court Tuesday asked them not to issue such orders during pendency of investigation.

Emphasizing that police have the statutory right and duty to investigate cognizable offences, a  Bench of Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice MR Shah and Justice MR Shah said criminal proceedings can’t be scuttled at the initial stage.

While issuing a set of guidelines, the Bench disapproved of the practice of passing orders such as “Not to arrest” or “No Coercive steps” in cognizable cases under investigation even as the high courts decided not to entertain petitions for quashing of FIRs filed by the accused.

“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 CrPC and/or Article 226 of the Constitution…,” the top court said.

“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,” it said, adding, “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”.

Writing the verdict for the Bench, Justice Shah said that passing such “blanket” interim orders without assigning reasons would hamper investigation and courts should not thwart any probe into cognizable offences.

Quashing of a complaint or FIR should be an “exception rather than an ordinary rule”, the Bench held.

The top court quashed a September 2020 interim order of the Bombay High Court which had directed restraining the police from taking any coercive measures against the accused in cheating/forgery case.

Noting that despite the law laid down by the top court on this issue, some high courts continued to pass such orders, it directed its Registry to forward a copy of the judgment to all the 25 high courts.

It said functions of judiciary and police were “complementary, not overlapping” and power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases.

The high courts must appreciate that speedy investigation is the requirement in criminal administration of justice, it said.

“The order of the high court must disclose reasons why it has passed an ad-interim direction during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. Such reasons, however brief, must disclose an application of mind,” it noted.

“The aforesaid is required to be considered from another angle also. Granting of such blanket order would not only adversely affect the investigation but would have far reaching implications for maintaining the Rule of Law,” it noted.

The bench said that while examining an FIR/complaint, the quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations.

It said that extraordinary and inherent powers of the court do not confer an “arbitrary jurisdiction” to act according to “its whims or caprice” and the first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported.