The Supreme Court on Tuesday cautioned the excessive courts from passing blanket orders defending accused individuals from arrest throughout pendency of investigation and mentioned that in case it ordered that “no coercive steps (are) to be adopted…the High Court must clarify what does it mean by” that, lest it’s “too vague and/or broad which can be misunderstood and/or misapplied”.
“The High Court shall not, and as such is not justified in passing the order of not to arrest and/or ‘no coercive steps’ either during investigation or till investigation is completed, and/or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution,” a bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud, M R Shah and Sanjiv Khanna dominated.
The bench mentioned that “…though, while passing interim orders, it is not necessary to elaborately deal with the merits, it is certainly desirable and proper for the High Court to indicate the reasons which have weighed with it in granting such an extraordinary relief in the form of interim protection”.
Writing for the bench, Justice Shah acknowledged, “…passing such type of blanket interim orders without assigning reasons, of not to arrest and/or “no coercive steps” would hamper the investigation and should have an effect on the statutory proper/responsibility of police to research the cognizable offence…. Therefore, such a blanket order is just not justified. The order of the High Court should disclose the explanation why it has handed an ad-interim course throughout pendency of proceedings below Section 482 Cr.P.C. Such causes, nevertheless transient, should disclose an software of thoughts.”
“We caution the High Courts again against passing such orders…”, the bench mentioned whereas quashing a September 2020 interim order of Bombay High Court, which directed that “no coercive measures shall be adopted” towards the accused in respect of an FIR lodged in 2019 on allegations of dishonest, forgery and others.
The ruling reiterated that the FIR is just not an “encyclopedia” which should disclose all details and particulars regarding the offence reported, and courts shouldn’t go into the deserves of the allegations when investigation by the police is in progress.
“Therefore, when investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of 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,” the bench dominated.
“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 bench mentioned.
