RAVURI KRISHNA MURTHY versus THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS on 5 March 2021

986

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2021] 2 S.C.R.

A

RAVURI KRISHNA MURTHY

v.

THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS

(Criminal Appeal Nos. 274 – 275 of 2021)

BMARCH 05, 2021

[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD ANDM. R. SHAH, JJ.]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Blanket orderof protection from arrest – Sustainability of – The High Court stayedCall the proceedings in a suit OS No. 274 of 2014 and directed theDistrict Collector, to submit report in respect of allegation involvingfabrication of the judgment and decree dated 11.11.2014 in thesaid suit – The District Collector conducted an enquiry and submitteda report to the High Court, stating that the decree as well as theDjudgment were fabricated and no such decree was passed by theSub-Divisional Magistrate in OS No. 274 of 2014 on 11.11.2014 –The High Court directed the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to takenecessary action on the administrative side – FIR was registered u/ss. 420, 468 and 471 r/w. 34 IPC – Second and third respondentswere served with notices u/s.41A of the Cr.P.C. – This was followedEby the proceedings before the High Court for the quashing of theFIR – The High Court dismissed the petition filed by the second andthird respondents u/s. 482 Cr.P.C.– While the High Court did notgrant relief to the second respondent, it issued a final direction,restraining the arrest of the third respondent – The secondFrespondent was arrested and produced before the Chief MetropolitanMagistrate – Whether the High Court was justified in passing ablanket direction of restraining the police from arresting the thirdrespondent, while at the same time having come to the conclusionthat there was no merit in the petition for quashing u/s. 482 – Held:The High Court was justified in declining to exercise its jurisdictionGu/s. 482 and, therefore, rejected the application for quashing theproceedings – Equally, there was no basis or justification fordirecting that the third respondent should not be arrested and thatthe Investigating Officer must complete the investigation and file afinal report u/s.173 Cr.P.C. without arresting the third respondent –HSuch a direction by the High Court has the effect of impeding the course of the investigation and has no basis or justification in law– A person in the position of the third respondent has remediesavailable under the Code of Criminal Procedure to protect his libertyby either seeking anticipatory bail u/s. 438 Cr.P.C. or applying forregular bail u/s. 439 – A blanket direction of the nature which wasissued by the High Court would completely dislocate the investigationand cause a serious obstruction in the enforcement of criminal justice– The said direction of the High Court is unsustainable in law – Theimpugned judgment and order of the High Court, insofar as itrestrains the Investigating Officer from arresting the third respondentis set aside.

Allowing the appeals, the Court

Conclusion

Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1. The High Court was of the view that (i) the truthof the allegations was a matter which had to be ascertained bythe Investigating Officer during the course of investigation; and(ii) in view of the seriousness of the allegations, no relief wasbeing granted to the second respondent (the first accused).However, the High Court proceeded to issue a blanket restraintagainst the arrest of the third respondent (the second accused)by directing that the police would complete the investigation andfile a final report in accordance with law. This Court is affirmativelyof the view that the direction of the High Court is unsustainablein law. The narration in the earlier part of the judgment wouldindicate that the registration of the FIR was preceded by a reportsubmitted by the Collector to the High Court which had mandatedan enquiry into the allegation in regard to the fabrication of ajudicial record. It was pursuant to the report filed by the Collector,that the High Court directed the Sub Divisional Magistrate toproceed on the administrative side in accordance with law. AnFIR has been registered involving a serious allegation in regardto the fabrication of judicial records. [Para 8][991-E-G; 992-A]

2. The High Court was justified in declining to exercise itsjurisdiction under Section 482 and, therefore, rejected theapplication for quashing the proceedings. Equally, there was nobasis or justification for directing that the third respondent shouldnot be arrested and that the Investigating Officer must complete AB

C

D

EF

G

H

Athe investigation and file a final report under Section 173 of theCode of Criminal Procedure without arresting the thirdrespondent. Such a direction by the High Court has the effect ofimpeding the course of the investigation and has no basis orjustification in law. The petition under section 482 was for quashingthe FIR. The High Court found no substance in the petition. TheBmatter should have ended there. The order restraining arrestwas not in aid of further proceedings. Indeed, the proceedingswere at an end once the High Court declined to quash the FIR. Aperson in the position of the third respondent has remediesavailable under the Code of Criminal Procedure to protect hisCliberty by either seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 or applying for regular bailunder Section 439. A blanket direction of the nature which hasbeen issued by the High Court would completely dislocate theinvestigation and cause a serious obstruction in the enforcement of criminal justice. Such an order ought not to have been passedDby the High Court. What compounds matters is that there is nota word in justification in the order of the High Court for issuingsuch a direction. The High Court has been oblivious to the seriousnature of the allegations, involving the tampering of a judicialrecord. This Court disapproves of the course followed by theEHigh Court. It has no foundation in law. [Para 10][993-B-F]

The State of Telangana vs. Habib Abdullah Jeelani andOrs. (2017) 2 SCC 779 : [2017] 1 SCR 141 – reliedon.

Case Law Reference

F

[2017] 1 SCR 141relied onPara 9

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal AppealNos.274-275 of 2021

From the Judgment and Order dated 25.04.2016 & 27.07.2016 ofGthe High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana &the State of Andhra Pradesh in Criminal Petition Crl.P.No. 6165 of 2016& CRLMP No. 10845 of 2016 in Criminal Petition Crl. P.No. 6165 of2016.

H

G.V.R. Choudary, K. Shivraj Choudhuri, Advs. for the Appellant.Ms. Bina Madhwan, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Ms. Sweena Nair,Anukul Raj, Kumar Dushyant Singh, Advs. for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. By an order dated 25 April 2016, a Single Judge of the HighCourt of Andhra Pradesh dismissed a petition under Section 482 of theCode of Criminal Procedure 1973 for quashing a First Information Report.However, after coming to the conclusion that no case for quashing wasestablished, the Single Judge granted a blanket order of protection fromarrest to the second accused. The second accused is impleaded to theseproceedings as the third respondent.

3. On 29 March 2016, a complaint was received by the Inspectorof Police, Charminar Police Station, Hyderabad from the appellantclaiming to be an owner in possession of land ad-measuring Ac 3-18guntas situated at Jagannadhapuram Panchayati, Rangapuram Village,Paloncha Mandal, Khammam District, Telangana. It was alleged thatthe second respondent (the first accused) engaged the third respondent(the second accused) as his lawyer and that the advocate and clientcolluded to fabricate a sale deed in respect of the property. Moreover, itwas alleged that the second respondent instituted a suit, OS No 274 of2014, before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam,Khammam seeking a perpetual injunction against the appellant in respectof the suit property on the basis of a fabricated sale deed dated 30November 2005. It has been alleged that the records in OS No 274 of2014 were tampered with by fabricating an ex-parte judgment and decreedated 11 November 2014 in favour of the second respondent. Moreover,it was alleged that the second respondent filed a Civil Revision Petition(CRP No 4711 of 2014) before the High Court with a grievance that theSub Divisional Magistrate was not adjudicating upon the dispute. Theappellant is alleged to have filed Civil Miscellaneous Revision PetitionNo 6433 of 2014 in Civil Revision Petition No 4711 of 2014, seeking astay of further proceedings in IA No 149 of 2014 in OS No 274 of 2014pending the disposal of the Civil Revision. It was alleged that the secondand third respondents had tampered with the records relating to OS No274/2014 and in the process, had also tampered with the docket sheet of A

B

C

DE

F

GH

Athe Mobile Court by fabricating an ex-parte decree dated 11 November2014.

4. The High Court by its order dated 12 December 2014 stayedall the proceedings in OS No 274 of 2014 and directed the DistrictCollector, Khammam to submit a report in respect of the allegationBinvolving the fabrication of the judgment and decree dated 11 November2014 in OS No 274 of 2014. The District Collector conducted an enquiryand submitted a report to the High Court, stating that the decree as wellas the judgment were fabricated and no such decree had been passedby the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam in OSNo 274 of 2014 on 11 November 2014. The High Court disposed of theCCivil Revision (CRP No 4711/2014) filed by the second respondent anddirected the Sub Divisional Magistrate to take necessary action on theadministrative side.

5. On 29 March 2016, FIR 62/2016 was registered under Sections420, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code at theDCharminar Police Station and the investigation was taken up. During thecourse of the investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded thestatements of various persons. The second and third respondents wereserved with notices under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure1973. This led to the institution of the proceedings before the High CourtEfor quashing the FIR, in the form of Criminal Petition No 6165 of 2016.The High Court byits judgment dated 25 April 2016 dismissed the petitionfiled by the second and third respondents under Section 482. While theHigh Court did not grant relief to the second respondent, it issued a finaldirection, restraining the arrest of the third respondent. As regards thesecond respondent, it has emerged from the counter affidavit which hasFbeen filed by the State that he was arrested on 23 March 2017 andproduced before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally. Thecounter affidavit states that during the course of the investigation, it hasemerged that the second and third respondents took the aid of aMagisterial clerk (the third accused). On 3 August 2018, a charge-sheetGhas been submitted to the competent court against the three accused.The case, namely, CC No 465/2018 is pending on the file of the ChiefMetropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad.

6. The principal issue which arises in these proceedings is whetherthe High Court was justified in passing a blanket direction of the natureHas it did, restraining the police from arresting the third respondent, while RAVURI KRISHNA MURTHY v. THE STATE OF TELANGANAAND OTHERS [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

at the same time having come to the conclusion that there was no meritin the petition for quashing under Section 482. The High Court hasobserved:

“On perusal of the entire material available on record, prima faciethere are some allegations as against the petitioners and truth orotherwise of the said allegations can be ascertained by theinvestigating agency during the course of investigation and thisCourt is not inclined to quash the proceedings in the said crime atthe threshold. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitionerssubmitted that in view of the pendency of the above crime, thepetitioners apprehend arrest and also harassment in the hands ofthe police.

Considering the seriousness of the allegations, this Court is notinclined to grant any relief to the first petitioner-A.1. As far assecond petitioner-A.2 is concerned, the police concerned aredirected to complete the investigation into the crime withoutarresting the second petitioner-A.2 and file a final report, if any, inaccordance with law. The second petitioner-A.2 is directed appearbefore the investigating agency as and when required andcooperate with the investigating agency.”

7. We have heard Mr G V R Choudary, learned counsel for theappellant, Ms Bina Madhavan, learned Counsel for the State and MrAnukul Raj, learned counsel for the second and third respondents.

8. The High Court was of the view that (i) the truth of theallegations was a matter which had to be ascertained by the InvestigatingOfficer during the course of investigation; and (ii) in view of theseriousness of the allegations, no relief was being granted to the secondrespondent (the first accused). However, the High Court proceeded toissue a blanket restraint against the arrest of the third respondent (thesecond accused) by directing that the police would complete theinvestigation and file a final report in accordance with law. We areaffirmatively of the view that the direction of the High Court isunsustainable in law. The narration in the earlier part of the judgmentwould indicate that the registration of the FIR was preceded by a reportsubmitted by the Collector, Khammam to the High Court which hadmandated an enquiry into the allegation in regard to the fabrication of ajudicial record. It was pursuant to the report filed by the Collector, thatthe High Court directed the Sub Divisional Magistrate to proceed on the A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

Aadministrative side in accordance with law. An FIR has been registeredinvolving a serious allegation in regard to the fabrication of judicial records.

9. In The State of Telangana vs. Habib Abdullah Jeelani andOrs.[1], a controversy arose before this Court where the High Court whiledeclining to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the CodeBof Criminal Procedure for quashing an investigation, restrained theinvestigating agency from arresting the accused persons duringinvestigation. This Court held that that such a direction amounted to anexercise under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure withoutsatisfying any of the conditions stipulated under that section. This Courtheld:C

“16. In the instant case, the High Court has not referred toallegations made in the FIR or what has come out in theinvestigation. It has noted and correctly that the investigation is inprogress and it is not appropriate to stay the investigation of thecase. It has disposed of the application Under Section 482 CodeDof Criminal Procedure and while doing that it has directed that theinvestigating agency shall not arrest the accused persons. Thisdirection “amounts” to an order Under Section 438 Code ofCriminal Procedure, albeit without satisfaction of the conditionsof the said provision. This is legally unacceptable.

E……………

23……..What needs to be stated here is that the States whereSection 438 Code of Criminal Procedure has not been deletedand kept on the statute book, the High Court should be well advisedthat while entertaining petitions Under Article 226 of theFConstitution or Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, exercisejudicial restraint. We may hasten to clarify that the Court, if itthinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and theself-restraint imposed by law, has the jurisdiction to quash theinvestigation and may pass appropriate interim orders as thoughtGapposite in law, but it is absolutely inconceivable and unthinkableto pass an order of the present nature while declining to interfereor expressing opinion that it is not appropriate to stay theinvestigation. This kind of order is really inappropriate andunseemly. It has no sanction in law. The Courts should oust and RAVURI KRISHNA MURTHY v. THE STATE OF TELANGANAAND OTHERS [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

obstruct unscrupulous litigants from invoking the inherentjurisdiction of the Court on the drop of a hat to file an applicationfor quashing of launching an FIR or investigation and then seekrelief by an interim order. It is the obligation of the court to keepsuch unprincipled and unethical litigants at bay.”

10. The High Court was justified in declining to exercise itsjurisdiction under Section 482 and, therefore, rejected the application forquashing the proceedings. Equally, there was no basis or justification fordirecting that the third respondent should not be arrested and that theInvestigating Officer must complete the investigation and file a finalreport under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure withoutarresting the third respondent. Such a direction by the High Court hasthe effect of impeding the course of the investigation and has no basis orjustification in law. The petition under section 482 was for quashing theFIR. The High Court found no substance in the petition. The mattershould have ended there. The order restraining arrest was not in aid offurther proceedings. Indeed, the proceedings were at an end once theHigh Court declined to quash the FIR. A person in the position of thethird respondent has remedies available under the Code of CriminalProcedure to protect his liberty by either seeking anticipatory bail underSection 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 or applying forregular bail under Section 439. A blanket direction of the nature whichhas been issued by the High Court would completely dislocate theinvestigation and cause a serious obstruction in the enforcement ofcriminal justice. Such an order ought not to have been passed by theHigh Court. What compounds matters is that there is not a word injustification in the order of the High Court for issuing such a direction.The High Court has been oblivious to the serious nature of the allegations,involving the tampering of a judicial record. We disapprove of the coursefollowed by the High Court. It has no foundation in law.

11. We accordingly allow the appeals and set aside the impugnedjudgment and order of the High Court dated 25 April 2016, insofar as itrestrains the Investigating Officer from arresting the third respondent(the second accused).

12. We clarify that we have not interfered with the dismissal ofthe petition for quashing the petition under Section 482. Since the charge-sheet has been submitted, as stated in the counter affidavit on behalf ofthe State of Tamil Nadu, the third respondent shall surrender before the A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

Acompetent court within two weeks and apply for regular bail. Any suchapplication shall be considered after hearing the public prosecutor andbearing in mind the requirement of the investigating agency.

13. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

B

Ankit Gyan

Appeals allowed.

C

D

E

F

G

H