The Supreme Court issued a significant judgment focusing on the quashing of interim orders in a recent legal case. The court’s analysis highlighted the importance of granting interim relief only in exceptional circumstances, stressing the need for thorough investigations by the designated officer. The decision sets a precedent for future legal proceedings and underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the principles of justice.
Facts
- The original complainant is aggrieved by the interim order of the High Court of Gujarat staying proceedings in criminal inquiry cases.
- The Supreme Court had previously stayed the interim order dated 10.10.2019 and allowed the accused to seek anticipatory bail.
- There is no record of the accused seeking anticipatory bail thereafter.
- In a detailed judgment on 17.12.2021, the Supreme Court quashed the interim orders of 10.10.2019 based on precedent.
- Special leave petitions converted into Criminal Appeal Nos. 1657, 1658, 1659, and 1660 of 2021.
- Criminal Application Nos. 9111 of 2019 and 9475 of 2019 in connection to FIR M. Case No. 2 of 2019 by the original complainant.
- Special Criminal Application No. 9112 of 2019 before the High Court related to FIR M. Case No. 3 of 2019.
- Private respondents (original accused) filed Special Criminal Application Nos. 9112 of 2019, 9111 of 2019, and 9475 of 2019 in High Court to quash criminal proceedings.
- High Court passed ex-parte ad-interim order on 10.10.2019 directing no coercive steps against accused before further investigation.
Also Read: Challenging Legal Presumptions in Negotiable Instrument Cases
Analysis
- The learned Single Judge of the High Court seriously erred in passing the interim orders in contradiction to a previous judgment in the case of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
- The learned Single Judge did not properly grasp the earlier judgment and order in the same case.
- Senior Advocates representing the accused in the writ petition agreed to quash the impugned interim order but requested the respective criminal applications be decided on their own merits.
- The learned Single Judge also did not understand the ratio of the decision in the case of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
- The High Court can grant an interim stay of investigation only in rarest of rare cases, as stated in previous litigation.
- Stalling the investigation is not typically in the interest of the prosecution or the investigating agency, which the High Court failed to appreciate.
- The interim order passed by the High Court is set aside without further detailed reasoning.
- Grant of any stay of investigation or interim relief under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is emphasized to be rare
- Such relief should be granted only in the rarest of rare cases
- Learned Senior Advocates representing original writ petitioners requested not to pass any further reasoned order.
- The Investigating Officer has the right to conduct investigations in criminal proceedings.
- Previous judgment cited principles from the case of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. in paragraph 4.
- Despite quashing earlier interim orders, the learned Single Judge granted the same relief, in contradiction to the previous judgment.
Also Read: Legal Analysis of Admission Irregularities in Educational Institutions
Decision
- The impugned order dated 14.02.2022 is set aside.
- No interim relief will be provided during the pendency of the special criminal applications.
- The present appeals are allowed.
- The accused can seek anticipatory bail by filing appropriate applications.
- Investigating officer directed to complete the investigation within three months and file a report/charge sheet.
- High Court to consider the special criminal applications on their own merits.
- Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
Also Read: Legal Analysis: Driver Appointment Dispute
Case Title: SIDDHARTH MUKESH BHANDARI Vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT (2022 INSC 788)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001044-001044 / 2022
