TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (3) TMI 1478
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of Criminal Procedure 1973 for quashing a First Information Report. However, after coming to the conclusion that no case for quashing was established, the Single Judge granted a blanket order of protection from arrest to the second accused. The second accused is impleaded to these proceedings as the third Respondent. 3. On 29 March 2016, a complaint was received by the Inspector of Police, Charminar Police Station, Hyderabad from the Appellant claiming to be an owner in possession of land ad-measuring Ac. 3-18 guntas situated at Jagannadhapuram Panchayati, Rangapuram Village, Paloncha Mandal, Khammam District, Telangana. It was alleged that the second Respondent (the first accused) engaged the third Respondent (the second accused) as h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eport in respect of the allegation involving the fabrication of the judgment and decree dated 11 November 2014 in OS No. 274 of 2014. The District Collector conducted an enquiry and submitted a report to the High Court, stating that the decree as well as the judgment were fabricated and no such decree had been passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam in OS No. 274 of 2014 on 11 November 2014. The High Court disposed of the Civil Revision (CRP No. 4711/2014) filed by the second Respondent and directed the Sub Divisional Magistrate to take necessary action on the administrative side. 5. On 29 March 2016, F.I.R. 62/2016 was registered Under Sections 420, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code at....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the police from arresting the third Respondent, while at the same time having come to the conclusion that there was no merit in the petition for quashing Under Section 482. The High Court has observed: On perusal of the entire material available on record, prima facie there are some allegations as against the Petitioners and truth or otherwise of the said allegations can be ascertained by the investigating agency during the course of investigation and this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in the said crime at the threshold. At this stage, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that in view of the pendency of the above crime, the Petitioners apprehend arrest and also harassment in the hands of the police. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m to the High Court which had mandated an enquiry into the allegation in regard to the fabrication of a judicial record. It was pursuant to the report filed by the Collector, that the High Court directed the Sub Divisional Magistrate to proceed on the administrative side in accordance with law. An F.I.R. has been registered involving a serious allegation in regard to the fabrication of judicial records. 9. In The State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani and Ors. (2017) 2 SCC 779, a controversy arose before this Court where the High Court while declining to exercise its inherent powers Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing an investigation, restrained the investigating agency from arresting the accused....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w, but it is absolutely inconceivable and unthinkable to pass an order of the present nature while declining to interfere or expressing opinion that it is not appropriate to stay the investigation. This kind of order is really inappropriate and unseemly. It has no sanction in law. The Courts should oust and obstruct unscrupulous litigants from invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the Court on the drop of a hat to file an application for quashing of launching an F.I.R. or investigation and then seek relief by an interim order. It is the obligation of the court to keep such unprincipled and unethical litigants at bay. 10. The High Court was justified in declining to exercise its jurisdiction Under Section 482 and, therefore, rejected the ....