Is the inherent power of the High Court under section 482 Crpc diluted with the interference of the Supreme Court?
Table of Content:-
- Background of the case
- Issues Raised
- Statutory provisions involved
- Submissions of the Parties
- Judgment Analysis
- Conclusion
- Case Law:
- State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani [(2017) 2 SCC 779]
- King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad [AIR 1945 PC 18]
- P. Kapur v. State of Punjab [AIR 1960 SC 866]
- Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana [(1977) 4 SCC 451]
- State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy [(2004) 6 SCC 522]
- Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque [(2005) 1 SCC 122]
- Sanapareday Maheedhar Seshagiri v. State of Andhra Pradesh [(2007) 13 SCC 165]
- State of Andhra Pradesh v. Bajjoori Kanthaiah [(2009)1 SCC 114]
- State of Maharashtra v. Arun Gulab Gawali [(2010) 9 SCC 701]
- State of Orissa v. Ujjal Kumar Burdhan [(2012) 4 SCC 547]
- State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335]
- State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy [(1977) 2 SCC 699]
- Rajiv Thapar V. Madan Lal Kapoor [(2013) 3 SCC 330]
- State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha [(1980) 1 SCC 554]
- Police, CBI v. Tapan Kumar Singh [(2003) 6 SCC 175]
- State of U.P. v. Naresh [(2011) 4 SCC 324
- Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement [(2019) 9 SCC 24]
- Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse [(2004) 3 SCC 440]
M/S Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra & ors. [Criminal Appeal No. 330/ 2021]
Background of the case
The appellant of the present case lodged an F.I.R. against Respondents No.1 to 4 for the offence under sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471, and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The appellant alleged that the accused forged and fabricate the resolution and had committed a fraudulent sale of valuable property namely Naziribagh Palace measuring 111, 882 sq. ft. The said property belongs to the appellant company to one M/S Irish Hospitality Pvt. Ltd.
The accused filed an application of anticipatory bail for the apprehending arrest on the said F.I.R. under section 438 Crpc. Session Court of Mumbai grants anticipatory bail to the accused. The session court increased the time period of the anticipatory bail from time to time it has been extended up to a year. During the pendency of the anticipatory bail, a writ petition was filed before the Bombay High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 Crpc for the quashing of the concerned F.I.R. On 22nd September 2020, the division bench of the High court directs the matter to another bench of the same court. The appellant prayed for the two weeks’ time period to file an affidavit for the reply by adding n additional compilation of additional documents in the registry. The court granted the said time. On 28th October 2020, the High Court passed an impugned order that “no coercive measures shall be adopted against the petitioners (original accused – respondent nos. 2 to 4 herein) in respect of the said FIR”.
Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order of the High Court the appellant filed the present appeal.
Issues Raised
- Whether High Court is justified in passing the said impugned order to put a stay on proceeding?
- Whether the quashing of F.I.R. while exercising its power under section 482 Crpc or Article 226 of the Constitution is valid?
Statutory Provision Involved
- Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
“Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”
- Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
“Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
- Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
“Whoever commits forgery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”
- Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
“Whoever commits forgery, intending that the 1[document or electronic record forged] shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
- Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
“Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any 1[document or electronic record] which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged 1[document or electronic record], shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such 1[document or electronic record].”
- Section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
“Punishment of criminal conspiracy.—
(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, 2[imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.]”
Submissions of the Parties
The contention of the appellants
Learned Senior Advocate Shri K.V. Viswanathan submitted the following on behalf of the appellant:-
- It was contended that the blanket direction provided by the High Court by restraining the investigating officer from taking the coercive measures was not warranted at all.
- It was also argued that after getting the interim protection from the session court the respondents were not cooperating in the investigation process.
- It was submitted that after getting interim protection from the session court almost after a year from the said order respondents filed a petition to quash the F.I.R is nothing but an abuse of the process of law.
- It was also argued that the High Court didn’t provide a reason for the said order.
- It was also argued that restraining the investigating officer for taking coercive measures against the accused had hampered the valuable right of the investigating officer to investigate the offences.
- The appellant further relied upon the ruling of State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani [(2017) 2 SCC 779]in which it was held that the power provided under section 482 Crpc and Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the F.I.R. has to be exercised in a very sparing manner.
- It was further submitted that the court has the wide power under section 482 Crpc to quash the F.I.R. but such power has to be exercised by considering the allegations made in F.I.R. or what is the conclusion of the investigation.
- It was submitted that when the investigation is already in the process then it isn’t right to put a stay on the investigation.
- The counsel for the appellant relied upon the following decision:-
- The power under section 482 of the Crpc doesn’t provide arbitrary jurisdiction to the High Court.
- The power to investigate inferred in the police cannot be ordinarily be interfered with by the judiciary.
- Until there is no exceptional case where non-interference would amount to a miscarriage of justice the judicial process must not interfere in the process of investigation.
- In case it is found that the police officer has explicitly and illegally their power then the court has jurisdiction to pass the appropriate order.
- The high court is the highest court of the state therefore, the court cannot provide a prima facie decision when the facts were incomplete.
- The High Court doesn’t have an inherent power to interfere in the investigation process until it is found that the allegation didn’t show the commission of the cognizable offence or police has been acted malafidely.
10. Further reliance was given on the rulings of King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad [AIR 1945 PC 18]; R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab [AIR 1960 SC 866]; Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana [(1977) 4 SCC 451]; State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy [(2004) 6 SCC 522]; Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque [(2005) 1 SCC 122]; Sanapareday Maheedhar Seshagiri v. State of Andhra Pradesh [(2007) 13 SCC 165]; State of Andhra Pradesh v. Bajjoori Kanthaiah [(2009)1 SCC 114]; the State of Maharashtra v. Arun Gulab Gawali [(2010) 9 SCC 701] and State of Orissa v. Ujjal Kumar Burdhan [(2012) 4 SCC 547].
11. Heavy reliance was put upon the decision of the State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335] in which the High Court would be justified in quashing the F.I.R. Investigation.
The contention of the Respondents
Learned Counsel Shri Diljeet Ahluwalia and Shri Malak Manish Bhatt had submitted the following on behalf of the respondents:-
- It was argued that High Court had committed no error in passing the concerned order as the nature of the allegations made in the F.I.R. depicts that it is a civil suit.
- It was also argued that the said F.I.R. is nothing but an abuse of law as it is a civil dispute which tried to be converted into a criminal dispute.
- It was also submitted that the power inferred under Article 226 of the Constitution and section 482 of the Crpc are very wide and it can be exercised to prevent the abuse of the process of the court of law and to secure the end of justice. And therefore the High Court would be justified to pass the impugned order.
- The counsel had relied upon the decision of the State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy [(1977) 2 SCC 699]in which it was held that the inherent power provided to the High Court is to achieve salutary public purpose.
- It was submitted that restraining the police to investigate is justified on the ground of balance of convenience, irreparable loss, and prima facie case.
- Further by relying upon the decision of the Rajiv Thapar V. Madan Lal Kapoor [(2013) 3 SCC 330], it was submitted that while exercising its power under section 482 Crpc the High Court need to conduct stepwise inquiry and if the answer of the inquiry is in affirmative then the High Court is justified in quashing the investigation conduct by the police.
Judgment Analysis
The court observed that High Court while exercising its power under section 482 Crpc and Article 226 of the constitution need to follow the parameters and the scope and ambit of the power are considers as the very parameters that were required to be applied while quashing F.I.R.
In this regard, the court first referred to the case of R.P. Kapur. While dealing with the inherent power of the High Court which was earlier given under 561 A of the code which provides that the said section didn’t exercise in regard to the matter which is covered by the other provisions. The inherent power of the court can be exercised to quash proceedings in a proper case either to prevent the abuse of the process of law or to secure the end of justice.
In the Kurukshetra case, the court observed that the inherent power of the High Court under section 482 Crpc doesn’t provide arbitrary jurisdiction to the High Court rather it provides that it can be used in rare and circumspect cases.
In respect of the Bhajan Lal case, the court discussed the scope of High Court Inherent Power under section 482 Crpc and Article 226 of the constitution in detail in order to quash the F.I.R.
In the case of Arun Gulab Gawali, the court had set aside the order of quashing the F.I.R. passed by the High Court while exercising its power under section 482 Crpc.
The court while considering the situation when the High Court was justified in interfering in the investigation by exercising its power under section 482 Crpc and Article 226 of the constitution, reliance was put on the ruling of State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha [(1980) 1 SCC 554].
The court also relied upon the decisions of the Supdt. of Police, CBI v. Tapan Kumar Singh [(2003) 6 SCC 175] and State of U.P. v. Naresh [(2011) 4 SCC 324] in which it was held that F.I.R. is not an encyclopedia which provides all the facts and details of the offence committed and reported.
The court also relied upon the judgment of P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement [(2019) 9 SCC 24] it was held that
“The investigation of a cognizable offence and the various stages thereon including the interrogation of the accused is exclusively reserved for the investigating agency whose powers are unfettered so long as the investigating officer exercises his investigating powers well within the provisions of the law and the legal bounds. In exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Crpc, the Court can interfere and issue appropriate direction only when the Court is convinced that the power of the investigating officer is exercised mala fide or where there is abuse of power and non-compliance of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, this power of invoking inherent jurisdiction to issue direction and interfering with the investigation is exercised only in rare cases where there is abuse of process or noncompliance of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code.”
The court observed that where it seems that initiation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law and non-interference would amount to a miscarriage of law then in such cases the interference of the High Court under section 482 Crpc and/ or Article 226 of the Constitution my quash the F.I.R./ complaint/ Criminal proceedings and also includes the further investigation.
The court further relied upon the ruling of Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse [(2004) 3 SCC 440] where it was held that the High Court need not pass the interim order on the basis of the merits of the case but it can provide the reason for providing such extraordinary relief.
Conclusion
- The police have a statutory power and duty to investigate a cognizable offence under Crpc.
- Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences.
- The power of quashing would be used sparingly with the circumspection and shall be used in the ‘rarest of rare cases.
- While examining such F.I.R. which is sought to be quashed, in such case court cannot conduct an enquiryto know the genuineness or the reliability of the F.I.R./ complaint.
- Quashing of F.I.R or complaint can be used as an exception and not as a general rule.
- The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary and not overlapping.
The court held that the present appeal succeeds. The impugned order of the High Court passed on 28th September 2020 which directs that ‘no coercive measures to be adopted’ is quashed and set aside.