Stay of investigation refused where interference would stifle inquiry at an early stage and remedies remained open.

The SC declined to interfere with an order refusing to stay investigation, holding that such intervention would stifle the inquiry at an incipient stage. It read the impugned order as showing application of mind to the stay request and noted that the petitioner remained free to pursue available remedies in law, including under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court stated that any such remedy would be considered on its own merits and would not be prejudiced by the earlier observations.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Supreme Court should interfere with the order refusing to stay the investigation and whether the petitioner should be left to pursue remedies available in law.

Analysis: The impugned order was read as a whole and it showed application of mind to the question whether the investigation ought to be stayed. The concern was that interference at this stage would have the effect of stifling the investigation at an incipient stage. The Court also noted that the petitioner remained at liberty to pursue remedies available in law, including under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and that such remedy would be considered on its own merits without being impeded by the earlier observations.

Conclusion: The Court declined to interfere with the order refusing to stay the investigation and left the petitioner to pursue available legal remedies.

Ratio Decidendi: Interference with an order declining to stay an investigation should not be made where it would stifle the investigation at an incipient stage and an independent statutory remedy remains available.

---