[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kamlesh Kocheta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 March, 2026
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
1 WP-9646-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
WP No. 9646 of 2026
(KAMLESH KOCHETA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS )
Dated : 18-03-2026
Shri Pritam Raman Giriya - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Surendra Gupta GA for the State.
This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
quashment of FIR dated 10/03/2026 registered at Crime no. 117 of 2026,
Police Station - Neelganga, Ujjain for offence punishable under sections
318(4) and 316(5) of the BNS, 2023 and all consequential proceedings
arising therefrom.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner on I.A no. 2389 of 2026, an
application seeking ad-interim stay / interim relief.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the content of the
FIR, it appears that the dispute is ex facie private monetary transaction,
which is civil in nature, therefore, no offence, as alleged, is made out against
the applicant. Learned counsel further submits that the offence punishable
under sections 318(4) and 316(5) of the BNS, 2023 are mutually exclusive
therefore, they cannot be prosecuted on the same content of accusation. The
petitioner is apprehending arrest in the matter, therefore, direction regarding
no coercive steps be passed.
Considered.
The Supreme Court in case of Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of
Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401, observed as under-
19. As observed hereinabove, there may be some cases where the initiation of criminal
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 18-03-2026
19:16:00
2 WP-9646-2026
proceedings may be an abuse of process of law. In such cases, and only in exceptional
cases and where it is found that non-interference would result into miscarriage of justice,
the High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482CrPC and/or Article
226 of the Constitution of India, may quash the FIR/complaint/criminal proceedings and
even may stay the further investigation. However, the High Court should be slow in
interfering the criminal proceedings at the initial stage i.e. quashing petition filed
immediately after lodging the FIR/complaint and no sufficient time is given to the police
to investigate into the allegations of the FIR/complaint, which is the statutory right/duty of
the police under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There is no denial of
the fact that power under Section 482CrPC is very wide, but as observed by this Court in a
catena of decisions, referred to hereinabove, conferment of wide power requires the Court
to be more cautious and it casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the Court.
Therefore, in exceptional cases, when the High Court deems it fit, regard being had to the
parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, may pass appropriate
interim orders, as thought apposite in law, however, the High Court has to give brief
reasons which will reflect the application of mind by the court to the relevant facts.
20. We have come across many orders passed by the High Courts passing interim orders
of stay of arrest and/or "no coercive steps to be taken against the accused" in the quashing
proceedings under Section 482CrPC and/or Article 226 of the Constitution of India
without assigning any reasons. We have also come across number of orders passed by the
High Courts, while dismissing the quashing petitions, of not to arrest the accused during
the investigation or till the charge-sheet/final report under Section 173CrPC is filed. As
observed hereinabove, it is the statutory right and even the duty of the police to investigate
into the cognizable offence and collect the evidence during the course of investigation.
There may be requirement of a custodial investigation for which the accused is required to
be in police custody (popularly known as remand). Therefore, passing such type of blanket
interim orders without assigning reasons, of not to arrest and/or "no coercive steps" would
hamper the investigation and may affect the statutory right/duty of the police to
investigate the cognizable offence conferred under the provisions of the CrPC. Therefore,
such a blanket order is not justified at all. The order of the High Court must disclose
reasons why it has passed an ad interim direction during the pendency of the proceedings
under Section 482CrPC. Such reasons, however brief must disclose an application of
mind.
21. The aforesaid is required to be considered from another angle also. Granting of such
blanket order would not only adversely affect the investigation but would have far
reaching implications for maintaining the rule of law. Where the investigation is stayed for
a long time, even if the stay is ultimately vacated, the subsequent investigation may not be
very fruitful for the simple reason that the evidence may no longer be available. Therefore,
in case, the accused named in the FIR/complaint apprehends his arrest, he has a remedy to
apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438CrPC and on the conditions of grant of
anticipatory bail under Section 438CrPC being satisfied, he may be released on
anticipatory bail by the competent court. Therefore, it cannot be said that the accused is
remediless. It cannot be disputed that the anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC can be
granted on the conditions prescribed under Section 438CrPC are satisfied. At the same
time, it is to be noted that arrest is not a must whenever an FIR of a cognizable offence is
lodged. Still in case a person is apprehending his arrest in connection with an FIR
disclosing cognizable offence, as observed hereinabove, he has a remedy to apply for
anticipatory bail under Section 438CrPC.
22. As observed by this Court in Hema Mishra v. State of U.P. , (2014) 4 SCC 453, though
the High Courts have very wide powers under Article 226, the powers under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India are to be exercised to prevent miscarriage of justice and to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 18-03-2026
19:16:00
3 WP-9646-2026
prevent abuse of process of law by the authorities indiscriminately making pre-arrest of
the accused persons. It is further observed that in entertaining such a petition under Article
226, the High Court is supposed to balance the two interests. On the one hand, the Court is
to ensure that such a power under Article 226 is not to be exercised liberally so as to
convert it into Section 438CrPC proceedings. It is further observed that on the other hand
whenever the High Court finds that in a given case if the protection against pre-arrest is
not given, it would amount to gross miscarriage of justice and no case, at all, is made for
arrest pending trial, the High Court would be free to grant the relief in the nature of
anticipatory bail in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
keeping in mind that this power has to be exercised sparingly in those cases where it is
absolutely warranted and justified. However, such a blanket interim order of not to arrest
or "no coercive steps" cannot be passed mechanically and in a routine manner.
23. So far as the order of not to arrest and/or "no coercive steps" till the final
report/charge-sheet is filed and/or during the course of investigation or not to arrest till the
investigation is completed, passed while dismissing the quashing petitions under Section
482CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and having opined that no
case is made out to quash the FIR/complaint is concerned, the same is wholly
impermissible.
24. This Court in State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani , (2017) 2 SCC 779 , as
such, deprecated such practice/orders passed by the High Courts, directing police not to
arrest, even while declining to interfere with the quashing petition in exercise of powers
under Section 482CrPC. In the aforesaid case before this Court, the High Court dismissed
[Habib Abdullah Jeelani v. State of Telangana , 2014 SCC OnLine Hyd 1299] the petition
filed under Section 482CrPC for quashing the FIR. However, while dismissing the
quashing petition, the High Court directed the police not to arrest the petitioners during
the pendency of the investigation. While setting aside such order, it is observed by this
Court that such direction amounts to an order under Section 438CrPC, albeit without
satisfaction of the conditions of the said provision and the same is legally unacceptable. In
the aforesaid decision, it is specifically observed and held by this Court that "it is
absolutely inconceivable and unthinkable to pass an order directing the police not to arrest
till the investigation is completed while declining to interfere or expressing opinion that it
is not appropriate to stay the investigation". It is further observed that this kind of order is
really inappropriate and unseemly and it has no sanction in law. It is further observed that
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 FIR or investigation and then seek relief by an interim order. It is further
observed that it is the obligation of the court to keep such unprincipled and unethical
litigants at bay.
25. In the aforesaid decision, this Court has further deprecated the orders passed by the
High Courts, while dismissing the applications under Section 482CrPC to the effect that if
the petitioner-accused surrenders before the trial Magistrate, he shall be admitted to bail
on such terms and conditions as deemed fit and appropriate to be imposed by the
Magistrate concerned. It is observed that such orders are dehors the powers conferred
under Section 438CrPC. That thereafter, this Court in para 25 has observed as under :
(Habib Abdullah Jeelani case )
"25. Having reminded the same, presently we can only say that the types of orders
like the present one, are totally unsustainable, for it is contrary to the aforesaid
settled principles and judicial precedents. It is intellectual truancy to avoid the
precedents and issue directions which are not in consonance with law. It is the duty
of a Judge to sustain the judicial balance and not to think of an order which can
cause trauma to the process of adjudication. It should be borne in mind that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 18-03-2026
19:16:00
4 WP-9646-2026
culture of adjudication is stabilised when intellectual discipline is maintained and
further when such discipline constantly keeps guard on the mind."
26. We are at pains to note that despite the law laid down by this Court in Habib Abdullah
Jeelani, deprecating such orders passed by the High Courts of not to arrest during the
pendency of the investigation, even when the quashing petitions under Section 482CrPC
or Article 226 of the Constitution of India are dismissed, even thereafter also, many High
Courts are passing such orders. The law declared/laid down by this Court is binding on all
the High Courts and not following the law laid down by this Court would have a very
serious implications in the administration of justice.
27. In the recent decision of this Court in Ravuri Krishna Murthy v. State of Telangana ,
(2021) 19 SCC 458, this Bench set aside the similar order [Maloth Tarachand v. State of
Telangana, 2016 SCC OnLine Hyd 808] passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court of
granting a blanket order of protection from arrest, even after coming to the conclusion that
no case for quashing was established. The High Court while disposing of the quashing
petition and while refusing to quash the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under
Section 482CrPC directed to complete the investigation into the crime without arresting
the second petitioner A-2 and file a final report, if any, in accordance with law. The High
Court also further passed an order that the second petitioner A-2 to appear before the
investigating agency as and when required and cooperate with the investigating agency.
After considering the decision of this Court in State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah
Jeelani, (2017) 2 SCC 779, this Court set aside the order [ Maloth Tarachand v. State of
Telangana, 2016 SCC OnLine Hyd 808] passed by the High Court restraining the
investigating officer from arresting the second accused.
28. Thus, it has been found that despite absolute proposition of law laid down by this
Court in Habib Abdullah Jeelani that such a blanket order of not to arrest till the
investigation is completed and the final report is filed, passed while declining to quash the
criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482CrPC, as observed
hereinabove, the High Courts have continued to pass such orders. Therefore, we again
reiterate the law laid down by this Court in Habib Abdullah Jeelani and we direct all the
High Courts to scrupulously follow the law laid down by this Court in Habib Abdullah
Jeelani and the law laid down by this Court in the present case, which otherwise the High
Courts are bound to follow. We caution the High Courts again against passing such orders
of not to arrest or "no coercive steps to be taken" till the investigation is completed and
the final report is filed, while not entertaining quashing petitions under Section 482CrPC
and/or Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The impugned FIR clearly mentions that the complainant was
dishonestly induced by the petitioner to invest through him in property. The
complainant had paid Rs. 35 lacs to the petitioner. The petitioner, instead of
providing property, promised to return him the money and gave three
cheques. When the complainant approached the Bank, the Bank informed
that the petitioner had instructed "stop payment" of the cheques, therefore, he
is deprived of the money as well as the property. In view of these contents,
no case is made out for grant of ad-interim stay on investigation/ no coercive
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 18-03-2026
19:16:00
5 WP-9646-2026
action direction. If the petitioner is apprehending arrest. He may approach the
Court in accordance with law. The I.A is accordingly, dismissed.
Issue notice to respondent no. 2 on payment of process fee by RAD
mode within seven working days. Notice be made returnable within three
weeks.
List the matter immediately on receipt of service report.
CC as per rules.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
amol
