Summary
In earlier appeals in the same criminal proceedings, the Supreme Court had set aside the Gujarat High Court's ex parte orders of no coercive steps, relying on Neeharika Infrastructure. On admitting the accused persons' quashing petitions, the High Court again granted interim relief and stayed further proceedings and investigation. The complainant appealed. Counsel for the accused asked the Court not to give detailed reasons. The Court held that the fresh interim orders were contrary to Neeharika and its own earlier judgment: a stay of investigation under Section 482 CrPC can be granted only in the rarest of rare cases, and the investigating agency has a right to investigate. The orders were set aside, and investigation was directed to be completed within about three months. The accused remained free to seek anticipatory bail.
Issues
- Whether the High Court could stay further investigation and criminal proceedings as interim relief while admitting petitions to quash under Article 226 and Section 482 CrPC, after the Supreme Court had set aside earlier similar interim orders in the same case.
Provisions considered
- Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Following Neeharika Infrastructure, a stay of investigation or other interim relief in a quashing petition can be granted only in the rarest of rare cases. Giving reasons does not by itself justify such a stay. (¶¶ 4, 6, 7)
- Article 226, Constitution of IndiaThe quashing petitions were filed under Article 226 read with Section 482 CrPC; the same restraint applies to interim stays of investigation granted in them. (¶¶ 1, 2, 6)
Held
- The investigating agency has a right to investigate. Investigation can be stalled or stayed only in the rarest of rare cases. The status report showed that the investigation had moved slowly and had been stalled at every stage, which was not in the interest of the prosecution. (¶¶ 4, 6)
- The Single Judge misread Neeharika Infrastructure by treating the giving of reasons as enough to justify an interim stay of investigation. Granting the very relief the Supreme Court had set aside in the same proceedings was in the teeth of that decision and of the Court's earlier judgment. (¶¶ 5, 6, 7)
- Because counsel for the accused asked for no detailed reasoned order, the Court set aside the interim orders without further reasons. It directed that there be no interim relief while the petitions are pending and that investigation be completed and a report filed, preferably within three months. The High Court is to decide the petitions on their merits, and the accused may apply for anticipatory bail. (¶¶ 5, 7, 8)
Result
Appeals allowed. The High Court's interim orders of 14.02.2022 were set aside, with no interim relief while the quashing petitions are pending. Investigation is to be completed preferably within three months, and the accused may seek anticipatory bail.