M/S NEEHARIKA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & Ors.

iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on; iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in the ‘rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty). v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule; viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere; ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping; x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences; xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice; xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence A B C D E F G H 1050 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 4 S.C.R. A B C D E F G H reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the 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. 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; xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court; xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self- restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur and Bhajan Lal, has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint; xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR; xvi) The aforesaid parameters would be applicable and/or the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered by the High Court while passing an interim order in a quashing petition in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, an interim order of stay of investigation during the pendency of the quashing petition can be passed with circumspection. Such an interim order should not require to be passed routinely, casually and/or mechanically. Normally, when the investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy and the entire evidence/material is not before the High Court, the High Court should restrain itself from passing the M/S NEEHARIKA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS 1051 interim order of not to arrest or “no coercive steps to be adopted” and the accused should be relegated to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the competent court. 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 the investigation or till the 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 of India. xvii) Even in a case where the High Court is prima facie of the opinion that an exceptional case is made out for grant of interim stay of further investigation, after considering the broad parameters while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India referred to herein, the High Court has to give brief reasons why such an interim order is warranted and/or is required to be passed so that it can demonstrate the application of mind by the Court and the higher forum can consider what was weighed with the High Court while passing such an interim order. xviii) Whenever an interim order is passed by the High Court of “no coercive steps to be adopted” within the aforesaid parameters, the High Court must clarify what does it mean by “no coercive steps to be adopted” as the term “no coercive steps to be adopted” can be said to be too vague and/or broad which can be misunderstood and/or misapplied. [Para 23][1096-B-H; 1097-A-H; 1098-A-H; 1099-A] R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866; State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) 1 Suppl. SCC 335 – relied on.

1.8 The impugned interim order/direction contained in clause (d) of the impugned interim order by which the High Court has directed that “no coercive measures to be adopted” against the petitioners (respondent nos. 2 to 4 herein) in respect of FIR No.367/2019 dated 19.09.2019, registered at Worli Police Station, Mumbai, Maharashtra (subsequently transferred to Economic Offence Wing, Unit IX, Mumbai, renumbered as C.R. No. 82/ 2019) is quashed and set aside. [Para 24][1099-B-C] A B C D E F G H 1052 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 4 S.C.R. Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana (1977) 4 SCC 451; State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy (2004) 6 SCC 522 : [2004] 3 Suppl. SCR 147; Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque (2005) 1 SCC 122 : [2004] 5 Suppl. SCR 790; Sanapareday Maheedhar Seshagiri v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2007) 13 SCC 165 : [2007] 13 SCR 478; State of Maharashtra v. Arun Gulab Gawali (2010) 9 SCC 701 : [2010] 10 SCR 683; State of Orissa v. Ujjal Kumar Burdhan (2012) 4 SCC 547 : [2012] 4 SCC 547; Imtiyaz Ahmad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 2 SCC 688 : [2012] 1 SCR 779; Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2018) 16 SCC 299 : [2018] 2 SCR 1045; State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha, (1980) 1 SCC 554 : [1980] 2 SCR 16; S.M. Sharma v. Bipen Kumar Tiwari, (1970) 1 SCC 653 : [1970] 3 SCR 946 ; Union of India v. Prakash P. Hinduja, (2003) 6 SCC 195 : [2003] 1 Suppl. SCR 307; Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi),(1999) 8 SCC 728 : [1999] 3 Suppl. SCR 348; Supdt. of Police, CBI v. Tapan Kumar Singh, (2003) 6 SCC 175 : [2003] 3 SCR 485; State of U.P. v. Naresh, (2011) 4 SCC 324 : [2011] 4 SCR 1176; P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24 : [2019] 12 SCR 172; Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2020) SCC OnLine SC 958; Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse, (2004) 3 SCC 440 : [2004] 1 SCR 399; Nitco Tiles Ltd. v. Gujarat Ceramic Floor Tiles Mfg. Association, (2005) 12 SCC 454; Hindustan Times Limited v. Union of India, (1998) 2 SCC 242 : [1998] 1 SCR 4 – relied on. State of Andhra Pradesh v. Bajjoori Kanthaiah (2009) 1 SCC 114 : [2008] 14 SCR 841; State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy, (1977) 2 SCC 699 : [1977] 3 SCR 113; Rajiv Thapar V. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330 : [2013] 3 SCR 52; State of U.P. v. Mohammad Naim AIR 1964 SC 703; State of Andhra Pradesh v. A B C D E F G H M/S NEEHARIKA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS 1053 Gourishetty Mahesh (2010) 11 SCC 226 : [2010] 8 SCR 423; Vijeta Gajra v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 11 SCC 618 : [2010] 7 SCR 1150; State of Maharashtra v. Sanjay Dalmia, (2015) 17 SCC 539; Amish Devgan v. Union of India, (2021) 1 SCC 1; Decision of the Delhi High Court dtd.22.06.2020 in Ganga Ram Hospital v. State [CRL.M.A. No. 7661/ 2020 in W.P. (CRL.) No. 921/2020]; Noor Taki Alias Mammu v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1987 RAJ 52; Madhukar Purshottam Mondkar v. Talab Haji Hussain AIR 1958 BOM 406 – referred to. King-Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad AIR 1945 PC 18 – referred to. Case Law Reference [2017] 1 SCR 141 [2004] 3 Suppl. SCR 147 [2004] 5 Suppl. SCR 790 [2007] 13 SCR 478 [2008] 14 SCR 841 [2010] 10 SCR 683 [2012] 4 SCC 547 [2012] 1 SCR 779 [2018] 2 SCR 1045 [1977] 3 SCR 113 [2013] 3 SCR 52 [2010] 8 SCR 423 [2010] 7 SCR 1150 [1980] 2 SCR 16 [1970] 3 SCR 946 [2003] 1 Suppl. SCR 307 [1999] 3 Suppl. SCR 348 relied on relied on relied on relied on referred to relied on relied on relied on relied on referred to referred to referred to referred to relied on relied on relied on relied on Para 3.6 Para 3.11 Para 3.11 Para 3.11 Para 3.11 Para 3.11 Para 3.11 Para 3.13 Para 3.15 Para 4.3 Para 4.8 Para 4.9 Para 4.9 Para 9.1 Para 9.1 Para 9.2 Para 9.5 A B C D E F G H 1054 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 4 S.C.R. A [2003] 3 SCR 485 [2011] 4 SCR 1176 [2019] 12 SCR 172 2014] 1 SCR 465 B [2004] 1 SCR 399 [1998] 1 SCR 4 [2010] 10 SCR 1070 relied on relied on relied on relied on relied on relied on relied on Para 9.6 Para 9.6 Para 9.8 Para 16 Para 21.1 Para 21.3 Para 21.4 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. C 330 of 2021. From the Judgment and Order dated 28.09.2020 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition (ST) No. 2306 of 2020. K.V. Vishwanathan, Sr. Adv., Arunabh Chowdhury, Vaibhav Tomar, Abhay Jadeja, Ms. Barnalli Chowdhury, Varun Satiya, Dechan W. Lachungpa, Mrs. Pragya Baghel, Advs. for the Appellant. Sachin Patil, Rahul Chitnis, Aaditya A. Pande, Geo Joseph, Diljeet Ahluwalia, Malak Manish Bhatt, Ms. Neeha Nagpal, Advs. for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.R. SHAH, J.

#1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned interim order dated 28.09.2020 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition (ST) No. 2306 of 2020, by which, in an application filed by private respondent nos. 2 to 4 herein (hereinafter referred to as the ‘original accused’) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the criminal proceedings being FIR No. 367/2019 dated 19.09.2019, the High Court has directed that “no coercive measures shall be adopted” against the original accused in respect of the said FIR, the original complainant has preferred the present appeal.

#2. That the appellant herein has lodged an FIR against respondent nos. 2 to 4 herein – original accused at Worli Police Station, Mumbai for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. That the allegations against the original accused D E F G H M/S NEEHARIKA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS [M.R. SHAH, J.] 1055 pertain to forgery and fabrication of Board Resolution and the fraudulent sale of a valuable property Naziribagh Palace ad-measuring 111,882 sq. ft. belonging to the appellant company to one M/s Irish Hospitality Pvt. Ltd.

2.1 Apprehending their arrest in connection with the aforesaid FIR, the original accused filed anticipatory bail application before the learned trial Court under Section 438 Cr.P.C. That the learned Sessions Court, Mumbai granted interim protection from arrest to the alleged accused. That the interim protection, which was granted by the learned Sessions Court, was further extended from time to time and continued nearly for a year thereafter. That during the pendency of the anticipatory bail application pending before the learned Sessions Court, Mumbai, original accused – respondent nos. 2 to 4 herein preferred a 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. That the said writ petition was listed for hearing before the Division Bench of the High Court on 22.09.2020, wherein an order was passed directing the matter to be listed on 24.09.2020 before another Bench. That on 28.09.2020, the writ petition was listed for hearing before another Division Bench. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant herein (respondent no.2 before the High Court) prayed for two weeks’ time to file an affidavit in reply with an additional compilation of documents. That the Division Bench granted two weeks’ time to the appellant herein to file an affidavit in reply with an additional compilation of documents in the Registry on or before 12.10.2020 with copy to the other side. Liberty was granted to the original accused (writ petitioners before the High Court) to file rejoinder, if any, on or before 19.10.2020. The matter was directed to be listed on board on 28.10.2020. While adjourning the matter to 28.10.2020, the High Court has passed the impugned interim order directing that “no coercive measures shall be adopted against the petitioners (original accused – respondent nos. 2 to 4 herein) in respect of the said FIR”. When the aforesaid order was being passed, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that anticipatory bail application filed by the original writ petitioners before the learned Sessions Court is pending for hearing and the learned Sessions Court may get influenced by the said order and therefore the Division Bench clarified that the learned Sessions Court shall decide the anticipatory bail application on its own merits. A B C D E F G H 1056 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 4 S.C.R. A B C D E F G H

2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned interim order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court directing that “no coercive measures shall be adopted” against the original accused (writ petitioners before the High Court) in respect of the said FIR, the original complainant has preferred the present appeal.

#3. Shri K.V. Vishwanathan, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellant – original respondent no.2 – complainant, Shri Diljeet Ahluwalia with Shri Malak Manish Bhatt, learned Advocates have appeared on behalf of the original accused – writ petitioners – respondent nos. 2 to 4 herein and Shri Sachin Patil and Shri Rahul Chitnis, learned Advocates have appeared on behalf of the State of Maharashtra.

3.1 Shri K.V. Vishwanathan, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant – original complainant has vehemently submitted that such a blanket direction of the High Court restraining the investigating officer from taking coercive measures, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was not warranted at all.

3.2 It is submitted that, as such, the original accused – respondent nos. 2 to 4 herein were already having the interim protection from the learned Sessions Court, Mumbai in the anticipatory bail application which was continued from time to time since last one year. It is submitted that, as such, the original accused were not co-operating with the investigation after having obtained the interim protection of arrest and, in fact, the investigating officer addressed a communication to the learned Sessions Court stating that the accused were not co-operating with the investigation. It is submitted that therefore thereafter and that too while enjoying the interim protection from arrest, to file an application for quashing after a period of almost one year and obtain such an order is nothing but an abuse of process.

3.3 It is submitted that, as such, no reasons whatsoever have been assigned by the High Court while passing such an interim order of “no coercive measures to be adopted/taken” against the original accused.

3.4 It is submitted that the High Court ought to have appreciated that the original accused – respondent nos. 2 to 4 herein are facing very serious charges for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and, in fact, the FIR was transferred to the Economic Offences Wing and the investigation was being conducted by the Economic Offences Wing. It is submitted that, as such, M/S NEEHARIKA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS [M.R. SHAH, J.] 1057 the original accused were not co-operating with the investigation after having obtained the interim protection from arrest. A

3.5 It is further submitted by Shri Vishwanathan, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that, as such, by issuing such a blanket direction restraining the investigating officer from taking coercive measures against the original accused, the valuable right of the investigating officer to investigate the offences has been hampered and/ or taken away.

3.6 Relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani, (2017) 2 SCC 779, it is submitted by Shri Vishwanathan that as observed and held by this Court the powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the first information report is to be exercised in a very sparing manner and is not to be used to choke or smother the prosecution that is legitimate. It is submitted that it is observed by this Court in the aforesaid decision that inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice. That such power has to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases. It is submitted that it cannot be disputed that accused cannot approach the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, as held by this Court in catena of decisions, inherent power in a matter of quashing of FIR has to be exercised sparingly and with caution and when and only when such exercise is justified by the test specifically laid down in the provision itself. It is submitted that in the aforesaid decision it is observed and held that power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the Court.

3.7 It is submitted that in a given case, the Court, having found that the case falls within the parameters of exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR, may pass appropriate interim orders as thought apposite in law, but even such an interim order shall be passed regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self- restraint imposed by law. It is submitted that even in such a case the High Court has to consider the allegations made in the FIR or what has come out in the investigation. B C D E F G H 1058 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 4 S.C.R. A B C D E F G H

3.8 It is submitted that in a case the accused against whom the FIR is lodged is apprehending arrest, a remedy is available to him to file the anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that even when the anticipatory bail application under Section 438 is filed, the same can be granted within the parameters of Section 438 Cr.P.C. and the conditions of the said provision are satisfied. It is submitted that, however, such a blanket order of no coercive steps without imposing any condition whatsoever and without satisfaction of the conditions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. is not permissible at all.

3.9 It is further submitted that, as such, by passing such a blanket order of “no coercive steps to be taken”, even the valuable right of the investigating agency/police to investigate the FIR will be affected.

3.10 It is submitted that assuming that the High Court has jurisdiction to pass an interim order in a given case, regard being had to the parameters of quashing, in that case also, such interim orders cannot be passed mechanically and/or without assigning any reasons. It is submitted that while granting such a protection, even the High Court has to give some brief reasons why stay of investigation and/or such an order of “no coercive steps” is warranted. It is submitted that there must be a reflection of application of mind to the facts of the case; allegations in the FIR and what has come out in the investigation. It is submitted that, as such, when the investigation is in progress at the threshold, it is not appropriate to stay the investigation of the case. It is submitted that only in an exceptional case and rarest of rare case, the powers to quash the FIR are required to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. It is submitted that the same parameters which shall be applicable while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/ or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the FIR/ investigation shall be applicable while passing an appropriate interim order.

3.11 Shri Vishwanathan, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has relied upon the following decisions on when a High Court can grant a stay of investigation or “no coercive measures order” in exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C./under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in support of his submissions that (1) inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice and the statutory power has to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases; (2) power of the police to investigate into a cognizable offence is ordinarily M/S NEEHARIKA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS [M.R. SHAH, J.] 1059 not to be interfered with by the judiciary; (3) save in exceptional case where non-interference would result in miscarriage of Justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences; (4) in case a police officer transgresses the circumscribed limits and improperly and illegally exercises his powers in relation to the process of investigation, then the Court has the necessary powers to consider the nature and extent of the breach and pass appropriate orders; (5) the High Court being the highest Court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court; (6) the High Court has no inherent powers to interfere with the investigation, unless it is found that the allegations do not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence or the power of investigation is being exercised by the police malafidely; (7) the High Court should be extremely cautious and slow to interfere with the investigation and/or trial of criminal cases and should not stall the investigation and/or prosecution except when it is convinced beyond any manner of doubt that the FIR does not disclose commission of an offence or that the allegations contained in the FIR do not constitute any cognizable offence or that the prosecution is barred by law or the High Court is convinced that it is necessary to interfere to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. In support of his above submissions, learned Senior Advocate has relied upon the following decisions, namely, King-Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad AIR 1945 PC 18; R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866; Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana (1977) 4 SCC 451; State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy (2004) 6 SCC 522; Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque (2005) 1 SCC 122; Sanapareday Maheedhar Seshagiri v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2007) 13 SCC 165; State of Andhra Pradesh v. Bajjoori Kanthaiah (2009)1 SCC 114; State of Maharashtra v. Arun Gulab Gawali (2010) 9 SCC 701; and State of Orissa v. Ujjal Kumar Burdhan (2012) 4 SCC 547.

3.12 Shri Vishwanathan, learned Senior Advocate has heavily relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, on when the High Court would be justified in quashing the FIR/investigation. He has relied upon paras 60, 61, 102 and 103 respectively of the aforesaid decision. A B C D E F G H 1060 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 4 S.C.R. A B C D E F G H

3.13 Relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Imtiyaz Ahmad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 2 SCC 688, it is submitted that the power to grant stay of investigation and trial is very extraordinary power given to the High Courts and such power is to be exercised sparingly only to prevent abuse of process and to promote the ends of justice.

3.14 Shri Vishwanathan, learned Senior Advocate also relied upon the recent decision of this Court in the case of Ravuri Krishna Murthy v. The State of Telangana and others (Criminal Appeal Nos. 274- 275 of 2021, decided on 05.03.2021), by which a somewhat similar order of protection of not to arrest passed while not entertaining the quashing petition under Section 482, has been set aside by this Court considering the decision of this Court in the case of Habib Abdullah Jeelani (supra).

3.15 Shri Vishwanathan, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has further submitted that in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2018) 16 SCC 299, this Court has observed and held that even in a case of challenge to the framing of the charge, wherever the stay is granted by the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction or otherwise, a speaking order must be passed showing that the case was of an exceptional nature.

3.16 It is further submitted that in many of the cases it is seen that the High Court while not entertaining the quashing petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and while dismissing such petitions, still grants interim protection/protection of not to arrest for a particular period or even till the report is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the aforesaid is absolutely impermissible and such an order of not to arrest for a particular period can be said to be beyond the scope and ambit of Section 482 Cr.P.C. Once the quashing petition is dismissed, the accused may avail the remedy of approaching the trial Court and/or the concerned Court for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C and the same can be considered while imposing the conditions and/or having been satisfied that the conditions of grant of anticipatory bail are satisfied. It is submitted that in a given case the immediate custodial investigation is warranted and in view of such a blanket order of not to arrest, will take away the right of the investigating agency/police to investigate into the allegations in the FIR. It is submitted that as held by this Court in catena of decisions and even M/S NEEHARIKA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS [M.R. SHAH, J.] 1061 as per the provisions of the Cr.P.C., the police/investigating officer has the statutory obligation to investigate into the allegations in the FIR and to find out the truth. It is submitted that therefore such a protection while dismissing the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not sustainable and is wholly impermissible. It is submitted that despite such orders have been criticized by this Court in the case of Habib Abdullah Jeelani (supra), still the High Courts are passing such orders, disregarding the law laid down by this Court.

#4. Shri Diljeet Ahluwalia and Shri Malak Manish Bhatt, learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the original accused – respondent nos. 2 to 4 herein have vehemently submitted that, as such, in the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the nature of the allegations made in the FIR and the dispute which, as such, can be said to be a civil dispute, no error has been committed by the High Court in passing such an order of “no coercive steps” against respondent nos. 2 to 4 herein – original accused – original writ petitioners.

4.1 Number of submissions have been made by the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 2 to 4 herein – original accused – original writ petitioners on merits and in support of their submissions that the impugned FIR is nothing but an abuse of process of law and that a civil dispute is tried to be converted into a criminal dispute, only with a view to harass respondent nos. 2 to 4 herein. However, we do not propose to deal with the case on merits and consider whether the impugned FIR is an abuse of process of law or not, as Section 482 petition is yet required to be dealt with by the High Court on merits in the pending proceedings.

4.2 Learned Advocates appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 2 to 4 herein – original accused – original writ petitioners have submitted that as held by this Court in catena of decisions, the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are very wide. It is submitted that as held by this Court, the High Court may exercise its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is submitted therefore in exercise of its wholesome powers, the High Court would be justified and entitled to quash the proceedings. It is submitted that similarly the High Court would A B C D E F G H 1062 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 4 S.C.R. A B C D E F G H be justified and entitled to stay the further investigation and even grant an interim order of stay of arrest and/or “no coercive measures to be taken”.

4.3 It is submitted that in the case of State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy, (1977) 2 SCC 699, it is observed by this Court that the High Court in its inherent powers is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution.

4.4 It is submitted that if the Court is of the prima facie view that further investigation or proceedings pursuant to the FIR is likely to cause unwarranted and unjustified harassment to the petitioner, the Court may grant an order of “no coercive measures” in favour of the accused.

4.5 It is further submitted by the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 2 to 4 herein – original accused – original writ petitioners that powers to grant interim stay/interim relief in a quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are akin to the powers of the civil court under Order XXXIX Rule 1 CPC, namely, prima facie case; balance of convenience and irreparable loss. It is submitted that therefore an interim injunction restraining the police from investigation consequent to the FIR can be justified on the touchstone of balance of convenience, irreparable loss and a prima facie case.

4.6 Relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Imtiyaz Ahmad (supra), it is submitted that the authority of the High Court to order stay of investigation pursuant to lodging of the FIR or trial in deserving cases is unquestionable. However, the learned Advocates have fairly conceded that wherever stay is granted, a speaking order must be passed showing that the case is of an exceptional nature.

4.7 It is vehemently submitted by the learned Advocates that when a criminal proceeding initiated pursuant to the FIR/complaint is nothing but an abuse of process of law and/or the same is wholly without jurisdiction or where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the criminal proceeding in respect of the offence alleged or where the allegations in the FIR/complaint even if they are taken at the face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged and exceptional case being made out on the grounds mentioned by this Court in the cases of Bhajan Lal (supra); M/S NEEHARIKA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS [M.R. SHAH, J.] 1063 R.P. Kapur (supra); and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. (supra), by giving brief reasons, the High Court would be justified in even staying the further investigation, by way of an interim order. It is submitted that misuse of criminal proceedings is not unknown and the criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course and therefore to take away the inherent powers of the High Court would not be in the larger public interest also.

4.8 Relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Rajiv Thapar V. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330, it is submitted that while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court is required to undertake step-wise enquiry as mentioned in para 30 of the said decision and if the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, the High Court would be justified in quashing the criminal proceedings. It is submitted that the grounds on which the criminal proceedings can be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the very grounds can be made applicable while granting stay of further investigation, pending the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

4.9 In support of his submissions, learned Advocates have relied upon the following decisions of this Court and various High Courts, namely, State of U.P. v. Mohammad Naim AIR 1964 SC 703; L. Muniswamy (supra); State of Andhra Pradesh v. Gourishetty Mahesh (2010) 11 SCC 226; Vijeta Gajra v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 11 SCC 618; Rajiv Thapar (supra); State of Maharashtra v. Sanjay Dalmia, (2015) 17 SCC 539; Amish Devgan v. Union of India, (2021) 1 SCC 1; the decision of the Delhi High Court in Ganga Ram Hospital v. State dated 22.06.2020 in CRL.M.A. No. 7661/2020 in W.P. (CRL.) No. 921/2020; the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Noor Taki Alias Mammu v. State of Rajasthan dated 26.02.1986 AIR 1987 RAJ 52; and decision of the Bombay High Court in Madhukar Purshottam Mondkar v. Talab Haji Hussain dated 14.01.1958 AIR 1958 BOM 406.

#5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties at length.

#6. The principal issue which arises is when and where the High Court would be justified in passing an interim order either staying the further investigation in the FIR/complaint or interim order in the nature of “no coercive steps” and/or not to arrest the accused either pending A B C D E F G H 1064 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 4 S.C.R. investigation by the police/investigating agency or during the pendency of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India pending before the High Court?

#7. While considering the aforesaid issue, law on the exercise of powers by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the FIR/complaint and the parameters for exercise of such powers and scope and ambit of the power by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are required to be referred to as the very parameters which are required to be applied while quashing the FIR will also be applicable while granting interim stay/protection.

7.1 The first case on the point which is required to be noticed is the decision of this Court in the case of R.P. Kapur (supra). While dealing with the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 561-A of the earlier Code (which is pari materia with Section 482 of the Code), it is observed and held that the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 561 of the earlier Code cannot be exercised in regard to the matters specifically covered by the other provisions of the Code; the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be exercised to quash proceedings in a proper case either to prevent the abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice; ordinarily criminal proceedings instituted against an accused person must be tried under the provisions of the Code, and the High Court would be reluctant to interfere with the said proceedings at an interlocutory stage. After observing this, thereafter this Court then carved out some exceptions to the above-stated rule, which are as under: “(i) Where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the criminal proceeding in respect of the offence alleged. Absence of the requisite sanction may, for instance, furnish cases under this category. (ii) Where the allegations in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; in such cases no question of appreciating evidence arises; it is a matter merely of looking at the complaint or the first information report to decide whether the offence alleged is disclosed or not. A B C D E F G H M/S NEEHARIKA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS [M.R. SHAH, J.] 1065 (iii) Where the allegations made against the accused person do constitute an offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced in support of the case or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. In dealing with this class of cases it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is manifestly and clearly inconsistent with the accusation made and cases where there is legal evidence which on its appreciation may or may not support the accusation in question. In exercising its jurisdiction under Section 561-A the High Court would not embark upon an enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not. That is the function of the trial Magistrate, and ordinarily it would not be open to any party to invoke the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction and contend that on a reasonable appreciation of the evidence the accusation made against the accused would not be sustained.”

7.2 In the case of Kurukshetra University (supra), this Court observed and held that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice; that statutory power has to be exercised sparingly with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases. In the case before this Court, the High Court quashed the first information report filed by the Kurukshetra University through Warden and that too without issuing notice to the University, in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This Court noticed and observed that the High Court was not justified in quashing the FIR when the police had not even commenced investigation into the complaint filed by the Warden of the University and no proceedings were at all pending before any Court in pursuance of the FIR.

7.3 Then comes the celebrated decision of this Court in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra). In the said decision, this Court considered in detail the scope of the High Court powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the FIR and referred to several judicial precedents and held that the High Court should not embark upon an inquiry into the merits and demerits of the allegations and quash the proceedings without allowing the investigating agency to complete its task. At the same time, this Court identified the following cases in which FIR/complaint can be quashed: A B C D E F G H 1066 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 4 S.C.R. “102.(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”

7.4 In the case of Golconda Lingaswamy (supra), after considering the decisions of this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra) and other decisions on the exercise of inherent powers by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., in paragraphs 5, 7 and 8, it is observed and held as under: A B C D E F G H M/S NEEHARIKA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS [M.R. SHAH, J.] 1067 “5. Exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code in a case of this nature is the exception and not the rule. The section does not confer any new powers on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Code. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely: (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all cases that may possibly arise. Courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart from express provisions of law which are necessary for proper discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them by law. That is the doctrine which finds expression in the section which merely recognises and preserves inherent powers of the High Courts. All courts, whether civil or criminal, possess in the absence of any express provision, as inherent in their constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice on the principle quando lex aliquid alique concedit, conceditur et id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest (when the law gives a person anything, it gives him that without which it cannot exist). While exercising powers under the section, the Court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist. Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent such abuse. It would be an abuse of the process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation or continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of A B C D E F G H 1068 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 4 S.C.R. A B C D E F G H fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto.

#7. In dealing with the last category, it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is clearly inconsistent with the accusations made, and a case where there is legal evidence which, on appreciation, may or may not support the accusations. When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge. Judicial process, no doubt should not be an instrument of oppression, or, needless harassment. Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the same time the section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death…..

#8. As noted above, the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage. [See Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary [(1992) 4 SCC 305 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 36 : AIR 1993 SC 892] and Raghubir Saran M/S NEEHARIKA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS [M.R. SHAH, J.] 1069 (Dr.) v. State of Bihar [AIR 1964 SC 1 : (1964) 1 Cri LJ 1] .] It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises, arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. In a proceeding instituted on complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognisance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. It is not, however, necessary that there should be meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The complaint/FIR has to be read as a whole. If it appears that on consideration of the allegations in the light of the statement made on oath of the complainant or disclosed in the FIR that the ingredients of the offence or offences are disclosed and there is no material to show that the complaint/FIR is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court. When an information is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered, then the mala fides of the informant would be of secondary importance. It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in court which decides the fate of the accused person. The allegations of mala fides against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by themselves be the basis for quashing the proceeding.”

7.5 In the case of Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. (supra), in paragraph 11, this Court has observed and held as under: “11. … the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest court of A B C D E F G H 1070 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 4 S.C.R. a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage. It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premise arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. In a proceeding instituted on complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. It is not, however, necessary that there should be meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears that on consideration of the allegations in the light of the statement made on oath of the complainant that the ingredients of the offence or offences are disclosed and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court. When an information is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered, then the mala fides of the informant would be of secondary importance. It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in court which decides the fate of the accused person. The allegations of mala fides against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by themselves be the basis for quashing the proceedings.”

7.6 In the case of Sanapareddy Maheedhar Seshagiri (supra), in paragraph 31, it is observed and held as under: A B C D E F G H M/S NEEHARIKA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS [M.R. SHAH, J.] 1071 “31. A careful reading of the abovenoted judgments makes it clear that the High Court should be extremely cautious and slow to interfere with the investigation and/or trial of criminal cases and should not stall the investigation and/or prosecution except when it is convinced beyond any manner of doubt that FIR does not disclose commission of any offence or that the allegations contained in FIR do not constitute any cognizable offence or that the prosecution is barred by law or the High Court is convinced that it is necessary to interfere to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. In dealing with such cases, the High Court has to bear in mind that judicial intervention at the threshold of the legal process initiated against a person accused of committing offence is highly detrimental to the larger public and societal interest. The people and the society have a legitimate expectation that those committing offences either against an individual or the society are expeditiously brought to trial and, if found guilty, adequately punished. Therefore, while deciding a petition filed for quashing FIR or complaint or restraining the competent authority from investigating the allegations contained in FIR or complaint or for stalling the trial of the case, the High Court should be extremely careful and circumspect. If the allegations contained in FIR or complaint disclose commission of some crime, then the High Court must keep its hands off and allow the investigating agency to complete the investigation without any fetter and also refrain from passing order which may impede the trial. The High Court should not go into the merits and demerits of the allegations simply because the petitioner alleges malus animus against the author of FIR or the complainant. The High Court must also refrain from making imaginary journey in the realm of possible harassment which may be caused to the petitioner on account of investigation of FIR or complaint. Such a course will result in miscarriage of justice and would encourage those accused of committing crimes to repeat the same. However, if the High Court is satisfied that the complaint does not disclose commission of any offence or prosecution is barred by limitation or that the proceedings of criminal case would result in failure of justice, then it may exercise inherent power under Section 482 CrPC.”

7.7 In the case of Arun Gulab Gawali (supra), this Court set aside the order passed by the High Court quashing the criminal complaint/ A B C D E F G H 1072 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 4 S.C.R. A B C D E F G H FIR which was even filed by the complainant. In the case before this Court, prayer for quashing the FIR before the High Court was by the complainant himself and the High Court quashed the FIR/complaint in exercise of the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Quashing and setting aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court quashing the FIR, this Court in paragraphs 13 and 27 to 29 has observed as under: “13. The power of quashing criminal proceedings has to be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases and the Court cannot be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of allegations made in the FIR/complaint, unless the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion. The extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice. However, the Court, under its inherent powers, can neither intervene at an uncalled for stage nor can it “soft-pedal the course of justice” at a crucial stage of investigation/proceedings. The provisions of Articles 226, 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called as “CrPC”) are a device to advance justice and not to frustrate it. The power of judicial review is discretionary, however, it must be exercised to prevent the miscarriage of justice and for correcting some grave errors and to ensure that stream of administration of justice remains clean and pure. However, there are no limits of power of the Court, but the more the power, the more due care and caution is to be exercised in invoking these powers. (Vide State of W.B. v. Swapan Kumar Guha [(1982) 1 SCC 561 : 1982 SCC (Cri) 283 : AIR 1982 SC 949] , Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate [(1998) 5 SCC 749 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1400] , G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. [(2000) 2 SCC 636 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 513 : AIR 2000 SC 754] and Ajay Mitra v. State of M.P. [(2003) 3 SCC 11 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 703] )

#27. The High Court proceeded on the perception that as the complainant himself was not supporting the complaint, he would not support the case of the prosecution and there would be no chance of conviction, thus the trial itself would be a futile exercise. M/S NEEHARIKA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS [M.R. SHAH, J.] 1073 Quashing of FIR/complaint on such a ground cannot be held to be justified in law. Ordinarily, the Court of Session is empowered to discharge an accused under Section 227 CrPC even before initiating the trial. The accused can, therefore, move the trial court itself for such a relief and the trial court would be in a better position to analyse and pass an order as it is possessed of all the powers and the material to do so. It is, therefore, not necessary to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC for the quashing of a prosecution in such a case. The reliance on affidavits by the High Court would be a weak, hazy and unreliable source for adjudication on the fate of a trial. The presumption that an accused would never be convicted on the material available is too risky a proposition to be accepted readily, particularly in heinous offences like extortion.

#28. A claim founded on a denial by the complainant even before the trial commences coupled with an allegation that the police had compelled the lodging of a false FIR, is a matter which requires further investigation as the charge is levelled against the police. If the prosecution is quashed, then neither the trial court nor the investigating agency has any opportunity to go into this question, which may require consideration. The State is the prosecutor and all prosecution is the social and legal responsibility of the State. An offence committed is a crime against society and not against the victim alone. The victim under undue pressure or influence of the accused or under any threat or compulsion may resile back but that would not absolve the State from bringing the accused to book, who has committed an offence and has violated the law of the land.

#29. Thus, while exercising such power the Court has to act cautiously before proceeding to quash a prosecution in respect of an offence which hits and affects the society at large. It should be a case where no other view is possible nor any investigation or inquiry is further required. There cannot be a general proposition of law, so as to fit in as a straitjacket formula for the exercise of such power. Each case will have to be judged on its own merit and the facts warranting exercise of such power. More so, it was not a case of civil nature where there could be a possibility of compromise or involving an offence which may be compoundable A B C D E F G H 1074 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 4 S.C.R.