In a recent legal case, the court emphasized the critical need for procedural compliance in judicial orders. The analysis focused on the significance of written records in legal proceedings to maintain judicial accountability and uphold public confidence in the judicial process. Let’s delve deeper into the court’s legal analysis in this case.
Facts
- Rs 50 lacs was honoured while the remaining cheques were dishonoured, leading to proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881.
- Appellant filed a complaint against the first respondent for forgery and cheating on 20 June 2018.
- Appellant and first respondent entered a partnership deed on 10 October 2010 for Calla Associates.
- Appellant communicated to bankers on 31 January 2018 to cease transactions in the partnership account due to disputes.
- Appellant received a document allegedly executed by him relinquishing rights in the firm to the first respondent on 22 February 2018.
- An ‘B’ summary report on 9 October 2020 found that the first respondent forged the document dated 8 September 2017.
- Appellant issued an advocate’s notice on 1 November 2017 to the first respondent, followed by a public notice on 2 January 2018.
- Settlement between appellant and first respondent on 12 March 2018 for dissolution of the partnership and payment of Rs 26.03 crores.
- FIR registered on 6 December 2020 for offenses under Penal Code against the first respondent.
- First respondent was arrested on 8 March 2021.
- Appellant filed a complaint against the first respondent for forgery on 9 July 2020, which was disposed of by the police station on 25 August 2019 due to a settlement on 24 December 2018.
- Allegations of forged signatures on partnership dissolution deed and other documents against the first respondent.
- Legal notice issued on 25 January 2018 for dishonoured cheques.
- Investigating officer found that first respondent fabricated the deed of dissolution of partnership, leading to further disputes and litigations.
- Single Judge directed the release of the first respondent if arrested in connection with the FIR.
- Proceedings adjourned to 22 March 2021 with a direction to not take steps against the first respondent till 23 March 2021.
- First respondent submitted that an oral direction was issued on 23 December 2020 to restrain his arrest, which was not disputed by the appellant.
- On 31 March 2021, Single Judge noted appellant’s previous complaint that was disposed of by investigating officer leading to a new settlement and the basis of the FIR.
- Single Judge issued directions based on earlier orders in the impugned order.
Also Read: Electoral Malpractices in Mayor Election
Arguments
- The appellant’s counsel pointed out serious allegations in an FIR lodged on 6 December 2020.
- Allegations included interpolation of a deed of relinquishment and a partnership dissolution document signed when the appellant was supposedly out of the country.
- The FIR implicated offenses under Sections 405, 420, 465, 467, 468, and 471 of the Penal Code.
- Multiple Memorandum of Understandings (MoUs) were signed between the parties based on representations by the first respondent.
- As per the appellant’s counsel, cheques issued by the first respondent bounced, and the title to the transferred lands is questionable.
- The appellant argued that the High Court’s decision to restrain the first respondent’s arrest without explanation was unjustified as per established legal principles.
- The impugned order by the High Court mentions the police report submitted by the APP, which highlighted the forgery of two valuable documents.
- Initially, the High Court order on 23 December 2020 noted the willingness of the first respondent’s Counsel to settle.
- Proceedings were adjourned to 10 February 2021 to explore the possibility of settlement.
- The High Court order did not explicitly restrain the arrest of the first respondent.
- A subsequent order on 9 March 2021 revealed an oral directive from the Single Judge to refrain from arresting the first respondent.
Also Read: Balancing Power and Transparency: Electoral Bonds Struck Down, Disclosure Mandated
Analysis
- The High Court is not expected to deliver a detailed judgment when granting a stay of arrest.
- Judges convey their decisions through judgments and orders.
- Oral directions restraining arrest should be avoided as they are not part of the official judicial record.
- A specific judicial order is necessary when granting interim protection against arrest.
- The reasons recorded by the Court must reflect a judicious application of mind to relevant facts and circumstances.
- Considerations for granting a stay of arrest should include the nature of allegations, seriousness of the offense, accused’s position, and the basis for granting the stay.
- The High Court did not refer to the allegations in the FIR, which is a significant deficiency.
- Procedural irregularities in granting interim relief must be avoided in future cases.
- Public confidence in the judicial process is maintained through the formulation of reasons in judicial orders.
- The element of judicial accountability is compromised when oral regimes prevail over written orders.
- Absence of a written record in judicial proceedings can lead to dangerous precedents.
- Parties and investigating officers should not rely solely on unrecorded oral observations.
- The principles under Section 482 of the CrPC were established in the Parbatbhai Aahir case.
- The administration of criminal justice involves wider interests of the State in maintaining law and order.
- High Courts should exercise caution in interfering with investigations.
- Interference by courts under exceptional circumstances to prevent miscarriage of justice is allowed under Section 482 of the CrPC and Article 226 of the Constitution.
- The petition for quashing is still pending before the High Court.
- The High Court was approached for ad interim relief in a petition for quashing the FIR.
- The reasons for the order of the High Court must indicate that relevant considerations have been taken into account.
- The judge must consider relevant factors when deciding on whether to grant interim relief.
- The lack of indication of relevant considerations in the High Court’s order raises concerns.
Also Read: Recall of Resolution Plan Approval: Legal Analysis
Decision
- The High Court order dated 31 March 2021 has been set aside
- Pending applications have been disposed of
- The High Court can proceed with the petition under Section 482 of the CrPC
Case Title: SALIMBHAI HAMIDBHAI MEMON Vs. NITESHKUMAR MAGANBHAI PATEL (2021 INSC 430)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000884-000884 / 2021
