Inherent powers and pre-arrest protection are exceptional; courts should not disrupt ongoing cognizable investigations without compelling justification.

Section 482 CrPC is an exceptional inherent power to prevent abuse of process or secure justice, but it should be exercised sparingly and ordinarily not to halt an ongoing investigation where the FIR discloses a cognizable offence. The Court found no basis to interfere with the de novo CBI investigation at that stage. A stay on arrest is not automatic during investigation and can be granted only when facts justify such protection; the prayer was treated as premature and ineffective in light of the continuing investigation and the magistrate's order. The Court also directed compliance with the arrest safeguards laid down in D.K. Basu.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was maintainable and justified interference with an ongoing criminal investigation. (ii) Whether the arrest of the applicant could be stayed during the pendency of the investigation and whether the petition had become infructuous.

Issue (i): Whether the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was maintainable and justified interference with an ongoing criminal investigation.

Analysis: The power under Section 482 is available to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice, but it must be exercised sparingly and only in rarest of rare cases. At the stage of investigation, the Court should ordinarily not interfere where the first information report discloses a cognizable offence and the matter requires independent investigation by the investigating agency. The Court accepted that the investigation was being conducted de novo by the C.B.I. and that the challenge did not justify intervention at that stage.

Conclusion: The petition under Section 482 was maintainable in principle, but no interference was warranted on the facts.

Issue (ii): Whether the arrest of the applicant could be stayed during the pendency of the investigation and whether the petition had become infructuous.

Analysis: A stay on arrest is not automatic merely because a person apprehends arrest during investigation. Arrest is not a compulsory incident in every investigation, and it can be justified only where the facts and circumstances so warrant. The Court held that the prayer for stay of arrest was premature in view of the ongoing independent investigation by the C.B.I. and also noted the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate which had rendered the earlier relief sought ineffective.

Conclusion: The arrest could not be stayed and the petition had become infructuous to the extent noted.

Final Conclusion: The Court declined to interfere with the criminal investigation or grant pre-arrest protection and, while directing compliance with the arrest safeguards laid down in D.K. Basu, dismissed the petition and disposed of the later application.

Ratio Decidendi: Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is to be exercised only sparingly in exceptional cases, and a pre-arrest stay should not be granted during an ongoing cognizable-offence investigation unless interference is necessary to prevent manifest injustice or abuse of process.

---