Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the High Court, while declining to quash an FIR or investigation under its inherent jurisdiction, can restrain the investigating agency from arresting the accused during investigation.
Analysis: The power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to be exercised sparingly and only to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice. Once an FIR discloses a cognizable offence and investigation is lawfully in progress, the police are entitled to investigate without judicial interference in matters within their province. A direction preventing arrest, when no application for anticipatory bail is before the Court and the conditions of Section 438 are not satisfied, in substance confers anticipatory-bail protection by an impermissible route. Such an order is neither supported by Section 482 nor by the power to quash the FIR or investigation.
Conclusion: The High Court could not, while refusing to quash the FIR and investigation, issue a blanket restraint on arrest. The direction was unsustainable in law.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the impugned order was set aside, with the investigation directed to continue in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi: A High Court cannot, in exercise of inherent jurisdiction while declining to quash an FIR, grant what is in substance anticipatory bail by restraining arrest during investigation; such protection must conform to the statutory scheme governing arrest and anticipatory bail.