Inherent jurisdiction allowed limited pre-arrest notice protection where investigation had long remained stayed and merits were left open.

The High Court noted that the petitioner was not named as an accused in the FIR, though his name emerged during investigation from diary entries attributed to the deceased. Because investigation against him had remained stayed for over five years and the stay was only recently lifted, the Court exercised inherent jurisdiction to grant a limited protective direction in the interests of justice. It held that the petitioner was entitled to seven days' advance notice before any apprehension or arrest in connection with the FIR. The Court did not examine, at that stage, the merits of the prayer for quashing of the FIR or for continued stay of investigation, leaving those issues open.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction requiring seven days' advance notice before any apprehension or arrest in connection with the FIR, while the prayer for quashing or stay of investigation was not examined on merits.

Analysis: The petitioner was not named as an accused in the FIR, though his name surfaced during investigation from diary entries attributed to the deceased. The investigation against him had remained stayed for more than five years under an earlier order, and the Court found that the stay had only recently been lifted. In these peculiar facts, the Court held that it was appropriate to exercise inherent jurisdiction to secure the ends of justice by granting a limited protective measure. At the same time, the Court declined to enter into the merits of the request for quashing or continued stay of investigation at that stage.

Conclusion: The petitioner was held entitled to seven days' advance notice before arrest in the stated FIR, and the request for broader relief was left open.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded only to the limited extent of pre-arrest notice, and the matter was otherwise disposed of without adjudicating the merits of quashing or stay.

Ratio Decidendi: Where investigation had remained stayed for a long period and the accused was not yet formally named, the High Court may invoke its inherent powers to grant a narrowly tailored pre-arrest protective direction to secure the ends of justice without finally determining the merits of the criminal case.

---