SIDDHARTH MUKESH BHANDARIversusTHE STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR.

                        [2022] 6 S.C.R. 853                            853


              SIDDHARTH MUKESH BHANDARI                                A
                                 v.
             THE STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR.
                (Criminal Appeal No. 1044 of 2022)
                        AUGUST 02, 2022                                B
        [M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Stay of
investigation and/or interim relief while exercising powers u/s.482
CrPC – Private respondents-accused filed Special Criminal
                                                                       C
Applications u/Art.226 of the Constitution r/w s.482 CrPC for
quashing criminal proceedings instituted by petitioner-complainant
– Before further investigation, the High Court passed ad-interim
order dated 10-10-2019 directing that coercive steps be not taken
against private respondents-accused – SLPs against the interim
order dated 10-10-2019 – Interim order 10-10-2019 stayed by            D
Supreme Court – SLPs converted into Criminal Appeals whereupon,
Supreme Court, after considering the decision in the case of
M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., set aside the interim order
10-10-2019 – Subsequently however, the High Court admitted the
special criminal applications, and granted interim relief vide
                                                                       E
impugned order dated 14-02-2022 staying further criminal
proceedings and also staying further investigation – Held: Despite
the earlier judgment and order passed by Supreme Court in the
very criminal proceedings quashing and setting aside the earlier
interim order passed by the High Court, again, the High Court
granted the very same interim relief, which can be said to be in       F
teeth of and contrary to earlier judgment and order in the case of
M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. – Grant of stay of
investigation and/or any interim relief while exercising powers
u/ s.482 CrPC would be only in the rarest of rare cases – Impugned
order dated 14-02-2022 passed in the Special Criminal Applications
                                                                       G
set aside – Investigating Officer to complete investigation and file
appropriate report/charge sheet before the concerned Criminal
Court having jurisdiction – High Court to consider the special
criminal applications in accordance with law and on merits –
Constitution of India, 1950 – Art.226 – Interim order.
                                                                       H
                                853
854            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2022] 6 S.C.R.


A           Allowing the appeals, the Court
            HELD:1. The High Court seriously erred in passing the
      impugned interim orders dated 14-2-2022, which can be said to
      be in the teeth of earlier judgment and order in the case of
      M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and even in the Criminal
B     Appeals (converted from SLPs against interim order dated
      10-10-2019 of the High Court.) [Para 5][857-F]
             2. The High Court has not properly appreciated the
      principles and the law laid down by this Court in the case of
      M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. What is emphasized by
C     this Court in the case of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
      is that grant of any stay of investigation and/or any interim relief
      while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be only
      in the rarest of rare cases. This Court has also emphasized the
      right of the Investigating Officer to investigate the criminal
D     proceedings. [Para 6][857-G; 858-B-C]
            3. Despite the earlier judgment and order passed by this
      Court in the very criminal proceedings quashing and setting aside
      the earlier interim orders dated 10-10-2019 passed by the High
      Court, which came to be set aside by this Court, again, the High
E     Court has granted the very same interim relief, which can be
      said to be in teeth of and contrary to earlier judgment and order
      in the case of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. [Para
      7][858-D]
             4. The impugned order dated 14.02.2022 passed in
F     respective Special Criminal Applications is set aside. The
      Investigating Officer is directed to complete the investigation at
      the earliest and file appropriate report/charge sheet before the
      concerned Criminal Court having jurisdiction. The High Court
      shall consider the special criminal applications in accordance with
      law and on its own merits. It will be open for the respective
G
      accused – original writ petitioners to move appropriate
      applications for seeking anticipatory bail. [Para 8][858-F-H]
            CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
      1044 of 2022.
H
     SIDDHARTH MUKESH BHANDARI v. THE STATE OF                                  855
                GUJARAT AND ANR.

      From the Judgment and Order dated 14.02.2022 of the High Court            A
of Gujarat in R/Special Criminal Application No. 9112 of 2019.
      With
      Criminal Appeal Nos. 1045 and 1046 of 2022.
       Harshit Tolia, P. S. Sudheer, Siddharth Ravi Kheskani, Rishi             B
Maheshwari, Ms. Anne Mathew, Bharat Sood, Ms. Shruti Jose, Advs.
for the Appellant.
      K. M. Natraj, ASG, P. S. Patwalia, Maninder Singh, Sr. Advs.,
Kanu Agrawal, Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Brijesh Limbachia,
Ms. Anushree Prashit Kapadia, Ms. Harshika Verma, Diyamk Dutt                   C
Dwivedi, Ms. Aastha Khanna, Mahesh Agarwal, Ankur Saigal, Anirudh
Bhatia, Ms. Ayushi Amod, Pranav Saigal, Ms. Ashita Chawala, E. C.
Agrawala, Advs. for the Respondents.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      M. R. SHAH, J.                                                            D
       1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned interim
order dated 14.02.2022 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at
Ahmedabad in respective Special Criminal Application Nos. 9112 of 2019,
9111 of 2019 and 9475 of 2019 by which the High Court while admitting
the special criminal applications filed under Article 226 of the Constitution   E
read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) has
granted the interim relief and has stayed the further proceedings of
respective criminal inquiry cases against the respondents – accused and
whereby has stayed the further investigation with respect to the criminal
proceedings initiated by the petitioner- complainant against the
                                                                                F
respondents – original writ petitioners before the High Court –
respondents herein – original accused, the original complainant has
preferred the present appeals.
       2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that Special Criminal
Application Nos. 9111 of 2019 and 9475 of 2019 were arising out of FIR
being M. Case No. 2 of 2019 initiated by the appellant – original               G
complainant. Special Criminal Application No. 9112 of 2019 before the
High Court was arising out of FIR being M. Case No. 3 of 2019. The
private respondents herein – original accused approached the High Court
by way of Special Criminal Application Nos. 9112 of 2019, 9111 of 2019
and 9475 of 2019 to quash the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers        H
856            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 6 S.C.R.


A     under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
      The said special criminal applications were filed before the High Court
      on 01.10.2019. Before any further investigation was carried out by the
      Investigating Officer, the learned Single Judge of the High Court vide
      common order dated 10.10.2019 passed ex-parte ad-interim order
      directed that there shall not be any coercive steps taken against the
B
      original writ petitioners – accused. The common interim order dated
      10.10.2019 passed in the aforesaid special criminal applications was the
      subject matter of special leave petitions before this Court. By order
      dated 09.12.2019 while issuing notice to the respondents therein, this
      Court stayed the interim order dated 10.10.2019.
C            In continuation of the order dated 09.12.2019, this Court passed a
      further order on 17.12.2019 and observed that it shall be open for the
      accused – respondents to seek anticipatory bail in accordance with law,
      which may be considered expeditiously. Nothing is on record to show
      that thereafter any further proceedings were initiated by the respondents
D     – accused seeking anticipatory bail. The special leave petitions filed
      before this Court against the common order dated 10.10.2019 were
      converted into Criminal Appeal Nos. 1657, 1658, 1659 and 1660 of 2021.
      By a detailed judgment and order dated 17.12.2021 and after considering
      the decision of this Court in the case of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure
      Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., AIR 2021 SC 1918,
E     this Court quashed and set aside the interim orders dated 10.10.2019
      passed in respective special criminal applications. Despite the above
      order passed by this Court thereafter by the impugned orders, while
      admitting the respective special criminal applications, the learned Single
      Judge of the High Court has again granted the impugned interim reliefs
F     staying further criminal proceedings and resultantly staying further
      investigation. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned interim
      order passed by the High Court granting interim relief and staying further
      criminal proceedings and resultantly staying further investigation, the
      original complainant has preferred the present appeals.
G            3. We have heard Shri Harshit Tolia, learned Advocate appearing
      on behalf of the petitioner – appellant – original complainant; Shri K.M.
      Natraj, learned ASG appearing on behalf of the respondent – State of
      Gujarat and Shri P.S. Patwalia and Shri Maninder Singh, learned Senior
      Advocates appearing on behalf of the respondents – original writ
      petitioners – respondents accused.
H
     SIDDHARTH MUKESH BHANDARI v. THE STATE OF                                857
           GUJARAT AND ANR. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

        4. Shri K.M. Natraj, learned ASG appearing on behalf of the State,    A
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 earlier
interim order passed by the High Court dated 10.10.2019. From the
Status Report, it can be seen that the actual investigation has started
only after June, 2020. Even thereafter also, the investigation can be said
                                                                              B
to be proceeding in a snail pace. It appears that at every stage, the
investigation has been stalled. It can also be seen that the investigation
has been stalled earlier and even thereafter pursuant to the impugned
order, 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 of
litigation (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1657, 1658, 1659 and 1660 of 2021), the      C
investigating agency has the right to investigate the criminal proceedings
and only in rarest of rare cases, the same can be stalled and/or stayed.
       5. After making some submissions, Shri Maninder Singh and Shri
Patwalia, learned Senior Advocates, appearing on behalf of the original
writ petitioners – accused have stated at the Bar that they do not invite     D
any further reasoned order if this court is intending quashing and setting
aside the impugned interim order passed by the High Court dated
14.02.2022 passed in respective Special Criminal Application Nos. 9112
of 2019, 9111 of 2019 and 9475 of 2019. However, they have requested
for making suitable observations to the effect that the respective special
criminal applications be decided and disposed of in accordance with law       E
and on its own merits. In that view of the matter, we are not passing any
further detailed reasoned order while quashing and setting aside the
impugned interim order passed by the High Court. However, suffice is
to say that the learned Single Judge of the High Court has seriously
erred in passing the impugned interim orders, which can be said to be in      F
the teeth of our earlier judgment and order in the case of M/s. Neeharika
Infrastructure 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 Court
that the learned Single Judge has not properly appreciated and/or             G
considered our earlier judgment and order passed in M/s. Neeharika
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Even the learned Single Judge has
also not properly understood the ratio of the decision of this Court in the
case of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra). It appears
that the learned Single Judge seems to be of the opinion that after giving
                                                                              H
858             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2022] 6 S.C.R.


A     reasons, the High Court can grant an interim stay of further investigation
      in a petition seeking quashing of the criminal complaint filed under Article
      226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. The High Court
      has not properly appreciated the principles and the law laid down by this
      Court in the case of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra).
      What is emphasized by this Court in the case of M/s. Neeharika
B
      Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is that grant of any stay of investigation
      and/or any interim relief while exercising powers under Section 482
      Cr.P.C. would be only in the rarest of rare cases. This Court has also
      emphasized the right of the Investigating Officer to investigate the criminal
      proceedings. In our earlier judgment and order, in fact, we abstracted
C     the principles laid down by this Court in the case of M/s. Neeharika
      Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra) in paragraph 4.
              7. Despite the earlier judgment and order passed by this Court in
      the very criminal proceedings quashing and setting aside the earlier interim
      orders passed by the High Court, which came to be set aside by this
D     Court, again, the learned Single Judge has granted the very same interim
      relief, which as observed hereinabove, can be said to be in teeth of and
      contrary to our earlier judgment and order in the case of M/s. Neeharika
      Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra). We are not observing anything further
      as the learned Senior Advocates appearing on behalf of the original writ
      petitioners – accused have prayed not to pass any further reasoned
E     order.
             8. In view of the above stand taken by the learned Senior
      Advocates appearing on behalf of the original writ petitioners before the
      High Court and the private respondents herein – original accused recorded
      hereinabove and the specific submission made, we set aside the impugned
F     order dated 14.02.2022 passed in respective Special Criminal Application
      Nos. 9112 of 2019, 9111 of 2019 and 9475 of 2019. Meaning thereby,
      there shall not be any interim relief during the pendency of the aforesaid
      special criminal applications. The Investigating Officer is directed to
      complete the investigation at the earliest and preferably within a period
G     of three months from today and file appropriate report/charge sheet
      before the concerned Criminal Court having jurisdiction. It goes without
      saying that the High Court shall consider the special criminal applications
      in accordance with law and on its own merits. It is also observed that it
      will be open for the respective accused – original writ petitioners to
      move appropriate applications for seeking anticipatory bail, as we have
H
     SIDDHARTH MUKESH BHANDARI v. THE STATE OF                                859
           GUJARAT AND ANR. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

observed so in our earlier order dated 17.12.2019 and, if filed, the same     A
be considered in accordance with law and on its own merits.
      Present Appeals are Allowed accordingly. Pending application, if
any also stands disposed of.

                                                                              B
Bibhuti Bhushan Bose                                       Appeals allowed.




                                                                              C




                                                                              D




                                                                              E




                                                                              F




                                                                              G




                                                                              H