SIDDHARTH MUKESH BHANDARI versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR. on 2 August 2022

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned interimorder dated 14.02.2022 passed by the High Court of Gujarat atAhmedabad in respective Special Criminal Application Nos. 9112 of 2019,9111 of 2019 and 9475 of 2019 by which the High Court while admittingthe special criminal applications filed under Article 226 of the Constitutionread with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) hasgranted the interim relief and has stayed the further proceedings ofrespective criminal inquiry cases against the respondents – accused andwhereby has stayed the further investigation with respect to the criminalproceedings initiated by the petitioner- complainant against therespondents – original writ petitioners before the High Court –respondents herein – original accused, the original complainant haspreferred the present appeals.

2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that Special CriminalApplication Nos. 9111 of 2019 and 9475 of 2019 were arising out of FIRbeing M. Case No. 2 of 2019 initiated by the appellant – originalcomplainant. Special Criminal Application No. 9112 of 2019 before theHigh Court was arising out of FIR being M. Case No. 3 of 2019. Theprivate respondents herein – original accused approached the High Courtby way of Special Criminal Application Nos. 9112 of 2019, 9111 of 2019and 9475 of 2019 to quash the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aunder Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.The said special criminal applications were filed before the High Courton 01.10.2019. Before any further investigation was carried out by theInvestigating Officer, the learned Single Judge of the High Court videcommon order dated 10.10.2019 passed ex-parte ad-interim orderdirected that there shall not be any coercive steps taken against theBoriginal writ petitioners – accused. The common interim order dated10.10.2019 passed in the aforesaid special criminal applications was thesubject matter of special leave petitions before this Court. By orderdated 09.12.2019 while issuing notice to the respondents therein, thisCourt stayed the interim order dated 10.10.2019.

C

C

In continuation of the order dated 09.12.2019, this Court passed afurther order on 17.12.2019 and observed that it shall be open for theaccused – respondents to seek anticipatory bail in accordance with law,which may be considered expeditiously. Nothing is on record to showthat thereafter any further proceedings were initiated by the respondentsD– accused seeking anticipatory bail. The special leave petitions filedbefore this Court against the common order dated 10.10.2019 wereconverted into Criminal Appeal Nos. 1657, 1658, 1659 and 1660 of 2021.By a detailed judgment and order dated 17.12.2021 and after consideringthe decision of this Court in the case of M/s. Neeharika InfrastructurePvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., AIR 2021 SC 1918,Ethis Court quashed and set aside the interim orders dated 10.10.2019passed in respective special criminal applications. Despite the aboveorder passed by this Court thereafter by the impugned orders, whileadmitting the respective special criminal applications, the learned SingleJudge of the High Court has again granted the impugned interim reliefsFstaying further criminal proceedings and resultantly staying furtherinvestigation. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned interimorder passed by the High Court granting interim relief and staying furthercriminal proceedings and resultantly staying further investigation, theoriginal complainant has preferred the present appeals.

G3. We have heard Shri Harshit Tolia, learned Advocate appearingon behalf of the petitioner – appellant – original complainant; Shri K.M.Natraj, learned ASG appearing on behalf of the respondent – State ofGujarat and Shri P.S. Patwalia and Shri Maninder Singh, learned SeniorAdvocates appearing on behalf of the respondents – original writpetitioners – respondents accused.H

4. Shri K.M. Natraj, learned ASG appearing on behalf of the State,has filed a Status Report on the investigation carried out by the I.O.after the order passed by this Court dated 09.12.2019 staying the earlierinterim order passed by the High Court dated 10.10.2019. From theStatus Report, it can be seen that the actual investigation has startedonly after June, 2020. Even thereafter also, the investigation can be saidto be proceeding in a snail pace. It appears that at every stage, theinvestigation has been stalled. It can also be seen that the investigationhas been stalled earlier and even thereafter pursuant to the impugnedorder, which cannot be said to be in the interest of the prosecution and/or investigating agency. As observed by this Court in the earlier round oflitigation (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1657, 1658, 1659 and 1660 of 2021), theinvestigating agency has the right to investigate the criminal proceedingsand only in rarest of rare cases, the same can be stalled and/or stayed.

5. After making some submissions, Shri Maninder Singh and ShriPatwalia, learned Senior Advocates, appearing on behalf of the originalwrit petitioners – accused have stated at the Bar that they do not inviteany further reasoned order if this court is intending quashing and settingaside the impugned interim order passed by the High Court dated14.02.2022 passed in respective Special Criminal Application Nos. 9112of 2019, 9111 of 2019 and 9475 of 2019. However, they have requestedfor making suitable observations to the effect that the respective specialcriminal applications be decided and disposed of in accordance with lawand on its own merits. In that view of the matter, we are not passing anyfurther detailed reasoned order while quashing and setting aside theimpugned interim order passed by the High Court. However, suffice isto say that the learned Single Judge of the High Court has seriouslyerred in passing the impugned interim orders, which can be said to be inthe teeth of our earlier judgment and order in the case of M/s. NeeharikaInfrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and even in Criminal Appeal Nos.1657 to 1660 of 2021.

6. It appears from the impugned order passed by the High Courtthat the learned Single Judge has not properly appreciated and/orconsidered our earlier judgment and order passed in M/s. NeeharikaInfrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Even the learned Single Judge hasalso not properly understood the ratio of the decision of this Court in thecase of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra). It appearsthat the learned Single Judge seems to be of the opinion that after giving A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Areasons, the High Court can grant an interim stay of further investigationin a petition seeking quashing of the criminal complaint filed under Article226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. The High Courthas not properly appreciated the principles and the law laid down by thisCourt in the case of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra).What is emphasized by this Court in the case of M/s. NeeharikaBInfrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is that grant of any stay of investigationand/or any interim relief while exercising powers under Section 482Cr.P.C. would be only in the rarest of rare cases. This Court has alsoemphasized the right of the Investigating Officer to investigate the criminalproceedings. In our earlier judgment and order, in fact, we abstractedCthe principles laid down by this Court in the case of M/s. NeeharikaInfrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra) in paragraph 4.

7. Despite the earlier judgment and order passed by this Court inthe very criminal proceedings quashing and setting aside the earlier interimorders passed by the High Court, which came to be set aside by thisDCourt, again, the learned Single Judge has granted the very same interimrelief, which as observed hereinabove, can be said to be in teeth of andcontrary to our earlier judgment and order in the case of M/s. NeeharikaInfrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra). We are not observing anything furtheras the learned Senior Advocates appearing on behalf of the original writpetitioners – accused have prayed not to pass any further reasonedEorder.

8. In view of the above stand taken by the learned SeniorAdvocates appearing on behalf of the original writ petitioners before theHigh Court and the private respondents herein – original accused recordedhereinabove and the specific submission made, we set aside the impugnedForder dated 14.02.2022 passed in respective Special Criminal ApplicationNos. 9112 of 2019, 9111 of 2019 and 9475 of 2019. Meaning thereby,there shall not be any interim relief during the pendency of the aforesaidspecial criminal applications. The Investigating Officer is directed tocomplete the investigation at the earliest and preferably within a periodGof three months from today and file appropriate report/charge sheetbefore the concerned Criminal Court having jurisdiction. It goes withoutsaying that the High Court shall consider the special criminal applicationsin accordance with law and on its own merits. It is also observed that itwill be open for the respective accused – original writ petitioners tomove appropriate applications for seeking anticipatory bail, as we haveH

SIDDHARTH MUKESH BHANDARI v. THE STATE OFGUJARAT AND ANR. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

observed so in our earlier order dated 17.12.2019 and, if filed, the samebe considered in accordance with law and on its own merits.

Present Appeals are Allowed accordingly. Pending application, ifany also stands disposed of.

Bibhuti Bhushan Bose

Appeals allowed.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H