India: Inherent Powers Under CrPC To Be Used Sparingly By High Courts: The SC Talks Tough

Background

The Hon'ble Supreme Court (SC) in a significant judgment in Neeharika Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, held that High Courts must be circumspect in the use of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The SC directed High Courts not to pass blanket orders of stay of investigation without providing sufficient reasoning. The Court stipulated some guiding principles to be considered by High Courts while adjudicating quashing petitions.

Brief Facts

The Respondents (Accused), who were enjoying interim protection from arrest on an anticipatory bail petition granted by the Sessions Court, filed a quashing petition before the Bombay High Court, inter alia, under Section 482 of CrPC and the Hon'ble High Court directed that no coercive measures were to be adopted against the Respondents during the pendency of the quashing petition with respect to allegations made in the First Information Report (FIR). This interim order was challenged before the SC on the ground that the order would impinge on the investigative powers of the Economic Offences Wing.

Observations by Supreme Court

Courts to be circumspect in exercise of inherent powers

The SC observed that the inherent powers under Section 482 were to be used sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases. While exercising powers under Section 482, the Court must only consider the commission of a cognizable offence and refrain from examining the merits of the allegations. The Courts must not thwart the investigation at a premature stage and allow the law to take its own course.

The Court took note of the seminal principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and RP Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866. In Bhajan Lal, the Court had observed that the FIR must be quashed when the allegations in the FIR, despite being accepted, at their face value in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence. In RP Kapur, it was held that powers under Section 482 must be exercised when there is a legal bar on the institution of proceedings.

Functions of the police are complementary and not overlapping

The SC observed that the role and sphere of activity of the two organs is demarcated and well defined. Investigation and interrogation are the exclusive domain of the investigating agency, whose powers are unfettered in so far as the investigation is conducted within the permissible limits of the law. The Courts must only interfere in cases where the exercise of the power of investigation is mala fide or not in compliance with the provisions of Chapter XII of the CrPC or where there is an abuse of the process.

The Court noted that certain cases involving civil liability are masqueraded as criminal disputes, with the intent to harass and pressurize the accused and that there also may be genuine allegations, which the police, by mandate, is required to enquire and investigate. A fine balance must be maintained in ensuring that the actual perpetrators are taken to task and the lives of innocents are not jeopardized by an abuse of the process. The Court has also directed that if the facts are hazy and the investigation has only commenced, then the concerned agency must be allowed to continue investigation.

Considerations for stay of investigation

The SC held that Courts must be circumspect while passing interim orders of stay of investigation in cases where the facts have not been completely established and the evidence on record is insufficient to decide conclusively. The Courts must follow the parameters which are applicable for regular orders under Section 482 while passing interim orders and must provide sufficient reasoning, indicating proper application of mind, which will also be useful if the order is contested before a higher forum. In cases where the accused is apprehensive of his imminent arrest, the remedy of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of CrPC can be availed, subject to satisfaction of the mandatory conditions.

Powers under Section 482 not to be relegated to Section 438

The Court deprecated the practice of the High Courts directing investigating agencies not to arrest or take any coercive action till the final report or chargesheet is filed under Section 173 of the CrPC, whilst dismissing petitions under Section 482 of CrPC.

The Court relied upon the decision in State of Telengana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani, (2017) 2 SCC 779 (Habib Jeelani), where the SC had observed that such directions under Section 482 petitions amounted to orders under Section 438 of the CrPC, notwithstanding the conditions of the said provision not being satisfied. The SC cautioned High Courts from passing any orders against the dictum in Habeeb Jeelani, as such orders are unsustainable and untenable in law.

In its decision, the Court set aside the specific condition of no coercive measures to be taken against the Respondents with respect to the FIR and directed the High Court to decide the quashing petition on its merits in light of the observations made.

Comments

The decision in Neeharika Infrastructures, while in line with long-standing precedents, is an important contribution to the jurisprudence on inherent powers of the Courts under Section 482 of the CrPC. However, the tenor of the judgment broadly seems to suggest that the Courts must be restrained in their approach while exercising powers under Section 482 of CrPC. The judgment lacks objectivity from the standpoint of balancing the rights of the investigating agency vis-à-vis the accused.

Though powers under Section 482 ought to be used with restraint, it is the prerogative of the Courts to ensure fairness of the investigation process. The Courts must be mindful of the fact that an unfair investigation would not only incarcerate the accused by depriving him of his cherished liberties but may also have a chilling effect on the society at large.

It is incumbent upon the High Courts to examine the contents of the FIR from the prism of objectivity in order to determine a plausible connection with the offences alleged in a Section 482 proceeding. A Court must not be blindsided by the sole consideration that an investigation for a cognizable offence is at its nascent stage and hence interference would not be appropriate.

High Courts in exercise of powers under Section 482 and Article 226 must step in to preserve the liberty of the citizen in granting bail, whilst keeping the necessary parameters in mind. The rigmarole of the procedural hierarchy of Courts should not become the basis of denying freedom to a citizen. Indian Courts must always endeavour to stand true to the virtue of being the last bastion of justice and civility.

The content of this document do not necessarily reflect the views/position of Khaitan & Co but remain solely those of the author(s). For any further queries or follow up please contact Khaitan & Co at legalalerts@khaitanco.com