Spread the love

M/S Neeharika, Infrastructure … vs The State of Maharashtra on 13 April, 2021

Overview of the Case

Citation                                                                                          SCC 315,211

Date of Judgment                                                                          13 April, 2021

Court                                                                    SUPREME COURT Of INDIA

Case Type                                            CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 330 OF 2021

Appellant                                                 M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

Respondent                                                          State of Maharashtra and others.

Bench:                                                                       Dr. Chandrachud, M.R. Shah                                                                                             

FACTS:

I am outraged and disappointed with the impugned interim order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, Bombay in Writ Petition (ST) No. 2306 of 2020 on 28 September 2020. Sections 2 to 4 of this document have been digitally signed by Sanjay Kumar under Section 226 of the Constitution of India (see Section 482 Cr.P.C.) (hereinafter referred to as “plaintiff”) with prayers voiding the unattested signatures. Date: 2021. 2019, 15:46:27 IST.

The appellant lodged an FIR against the appellant. 2 to 4 of these documents- persons first charged at Worli Police Station, Bombay for offenses under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations against the appellants relate to the forgery and falsification of board approvals and the fraudulent sale of 111,882 square feet of advertising space in Naziri Bagh Palace, a valuable asset owned by the appellant company, to an M/S Irish catering company. Ltd.

After coming to know about his arrest in connection with the aforesaid FIR, the main accused filed an application for speedy bail under Section 438 of the Penal Code before the Court of Law. The Bombay Sessions Court granted the suspect interim protection from arrest. The interim protection granted by the learned Sessions Court was further extended from time to time and continued for almost a year thereafter. This main accused was accused no.16 January 2011, while the bail application was pending in the Sessions Court in Mumbai. 2 to 4 of these documents gave priority to petitions before the Bombay High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (r/w Cr.P.C. Section 482). For crushing FIR on 17 September 2020.

ISSUE:

Whether petition before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay under Article 226 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR, on 17.09.2020

ARGUMENT BY APPEALEANT:

Plaintiffs contend that the facts and circumstances of the case do not justify such broad directions from the Supreme Court to dissuade investigators from coercive action.

Therefore, the Supreme Court argues that it failed to show cause in granting the interim injunction against the plaintiffs that “coercive action will not be taken.” The Supreme Court contends that it should have known that the appellants, respondent nos. 2 to 4 of this document were charged with very serious offenses under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and in fact the FIR was transferred to the Economic Offenses Division and the investigation was conducted by the Economic Offenses Division. Therefore, it is said that the main accused did not cooperate with the investigation after receiving temporary protection from arrest.

It is that the court has recognized in certain cases that the cases are within the scope of exercising its powers according to Article 482 of the Civil Code. Appropriate interim orders as provided in the Act may be passed to suppress the FIR, but even such interim orders have to be issued subject to the conditions of suppression and limitations imposed by law. Even in such cases, the Supreme Court has to consider the allegations of the FIR and the findings of the investigation.

ARGUMENT BY RESPONDENT:

The main petitioner has submitted that the powers vested in the High Court under Article 482 of the Penal Code are null and void as it has remained in summary judgment. and/or the coverage under Section 226 of the Constitution of India is too wide. As we have held, it is submitted that the Supreme Court can exercise its powers under Article 482 of the Penal Code. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in respect of cognizable offenses to prevent abuse of process of court or to secure the ends of justice. Therefore, the judgment is presented as a correct exercise of power and the Supreme Court is justified and entitled to stop the proceedings. In the same way, the Supreme Court is justified and has the right to suspend further investigations and even issue a temporary order to suspend the arrest and the “no coercive action” order.

According to Article 482 of the Civil Code, the Supreme Court is obliged to conduct a step-by-step investigation as described in paragraph 30 of the judgment, and if the answer to all steps is positive, the Supreme Court is justified in stopping the criminal proceedings. It is submitted that the grounds on which criminal proceedings can be quashed by exercising powers under Section 482 of the Penal Code, while allowing the suspension of further investigation pending an application for quashing under Section 482 of the Penal Code, are applicable.

JUDGEMENT:

Now, in so far as the impugned interim order passed by the Supreme Court of “no coercive action” against the accused was passed by the Supreme Court, the same cannot be sustained for the reasons which follow.

i) Such interim orders passed by the Supreme Court affect the powers of the investigating authorities to deal with the offences, but otherwise, the statutory rights/duties of the police under the relevant provisions of the Police Act.

ii) An interim order is a confidential order.

iii) The Supreme Court gave no reason, while the police issued a blanket order that “no coercive action shall be taken”.

Criminal and other petition No. 4961 of 2021 was replaced by respondent No. 4961. 2-4 of these documents – Cr.P.C. Section 340 r/w to institute a suit against the main accused plaintiff under Section 195(1)(B). It is alleged that the appellant has obtained an interim order dated 12th October, 2020 from the Court and a pending order dated 28th September, 2020 passed by the High Court concealing important documents/agreement and facts.

The number of claims and the number of counterclaims have been stated by the learned counsels of each party. However, since the motion to quash has not yet been heard on the merits in the Supreme Court, we grant the motion and do not propose to hear the merits of the motion. However, suffice it to say that the interim order dated 12th October 2020 and the stay order dated 28th September 2020 were issued by the Supreme Court on simple grounds, and even if there was a hidden document/agreement, it had nothing to do with the interim order issued by the Tribunal. It is very clear from the interim order dated 12th October 2020 that what will be considered while passing the interim order dated 12th October 2020. We, therefore, terminate the Miscellaneous Criminal Petition No. 4961/2021 and thereby dispose of the same position.

CONCLUSION:

In view of the above and for the above reasons, a final question on the original/main question, i.e. under Article 482 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, during the suspension of the withdrawal of the suit adopted, is it justified for the Supreme Court to grant the interim injunction and under what circumstances it is fair to suspend the Supreme Court. The order not to arrest the accused or “no coercive action” is the conclusion as follows. During the investigation or until the final report/complaint is prepared under Section 173 of the Penal Code, while exercising the powers under Section 482 of the Penal Code, it shall not prevent the rejection/dismissal/entry/suspension of proceedings/charges/FIR. And/or as per Article 226 of the Constitution of India, our final results are:

i) The police has legal rights and obligations to deal with cognizable crimes based on the relevant provisions contained in Chapter 14 of the Criminal Procedure Law.

ii) Courts will not prevent any investigation into cognizable offences.

iii) The court will not allow the investigation to continue only if the preliminary information report does not disclose any crime or cognizable offence.

iv) The power of suppression, as observed, must be exercised judiciously and judiciously in the “rarest of rare cases” (not to be confused with the establishment of the death penalty).

v) While investigating the FIR/complaint sought to be quashed, the court cannot make any inquiry into the validity, veracity or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint.

vi) Criminal proceedings should not be stopped at an early stage.

vii) Cancellation of complaints / FIRs should be the exception rather than the rule.

Considering the above and for the reasons mentioned above, this appeal is successful. Interim Order/Direction contained in Clause (d) of the Interim Order dated 28th September, 2020, which Supreme Court against FIR No. 367/2019 dated 19th September, 2019 that “no coercive action shall be taken against the complainants registered by the police in this case (D2).”, Mumbai, Maharashtra (subsequently transferred to the Economic Offensive Division 9 Force, Mumbai and bearing C.R. No. 82/2019 transferred) is hereby quashed and preserved. However, it is clear that we have made no comment on the merits of this case, particularly the applications of the FIR and the High Court for vacating the complaints, for trial in accordance with law, on its own merits, and in view of the above observations made by the Tribunal in this judgment.

Considering that some high courts continue to issue this temporary order, despite the laws established by this court in the case of Habib Abdullah Jilani (ibid.) and other rulings above, we order the registry office to send a copy of this ruling to all high courts so that it can be sent to the president of the Supreme Court and communicated to all judges of the Supreme Court.

REFRENCES:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/199473647/

https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/neeharika-infrastructure-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ll-2021-sc-211-391856.pdf

This article is written by Naman Jain of Galgotias University, Intern Under Legal Vidhiya.


0 Comments

Leave a Reply

Avatar placeholder

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *