Siddharth Mukesh Bhandari Versus The State of Gujarat and Anr

Siddharth Mukesh Bhandari Versus The State of Gujarat and Anr

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1044 OF 2022

Siddharth Mukesh Bhandari …Appellant(s)

Versus

The State of Gujarat and Anr. …Respondent(s)

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1045 OF 2022

Siddharth Mukesh Bhandari …Appellant(s)

Versus

The State of Gujarat and Anr. …Respondent(s)

AND

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1046 OF 2022

Siddharth Mukesh Bhandari …Appellant(s)

Versus

The State of Gujarat and Ors. …Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned interim order

dated 14.02.2022 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in

1

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 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

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

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 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

2

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

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.

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

– 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, 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,

3

while admitting the respective special criminal applications, the learned

Single Judge of the High Court has again granted the impugned interim

reliefs 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.

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.

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 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 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

4

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 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

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

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 the

5

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

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

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

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

6

abstracted 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

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 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 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

7

within a period 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 observed so in our earlier order dated

17.12.2019 and, if filed, the same be considered in accordance with law

and on its own merits.

Present Appeals are Allowed accordingly. Pending application, if

any also stands disposed of.

………………………………….J.

 [M.R. SHAH]

NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.

AUGUST 02, 2022. [B.V. NAGARATHNA]

8