Siddharth Mukesh Bhandari v. the State of Gujarat and Anr.
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 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 proce edings 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- complainan t against the
respondents – original writ petitioners before the High Court –
respondents herein – original accused, the original complai nant has
preferred the present appeals.
2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that Special C riminal
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
SIDDHARTH MUKESH BHANDARI v. THE STATE OF
GUJARAT AND ANR.
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-int erim 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 Cour t. By order
dated 09.12.2019 while issuing notice to the respondents therein, thi s
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 t he
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 pe titions 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. De spite the above
order passed by this Court thereafter by the impugned order s, 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 f urther
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 invest igation, 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 – or iginal writ
petitioners – respondents accused.
857
4. Shri K.M. Natraj, learned ASG appearing on behalf of the State,
has filed a Status Report on the investigation carried ou t 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 investigatio n 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 eve ry stage, the
investigation has been stalled. It can also be seen that the investigation
has been stalled earlier and even thereafter pursuant to t he 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/o r 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 asid e the
impugned interim order passed by the High Court. However, suffice is
to say that the learned Single Judge of the High Court has se riously
erred in passing the impugned interim orders, which can be said to be in
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 apprecia ted 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
SIDDHARTH MUKESH BHANDARI v. THE STATE OF
GUJARAT AND ANR. [M. R. SHAH, J.]
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 a bstracted
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 asi de 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 furthe r 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 within a period
of three months from today and file appropriate report/charg e 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 p etitioners to
move appropriate applications for seeking anticipatory bail, as we have
859
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.
Bibhuti Bhushan Bose Appeals allowed.
SIDDHARTH MUKESH BHANDARI v. THE STATE OF
GUJARAT AND ANR. [M. R. SHAH, J.]