The Supreme Court has held that while issuing an interlocutory direction at an interim stage while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the High Court must furnish reasons. [Jitul Jentilal Kotecha v. State of Gujarat & Ors. Etc]
Brief Facts
A land dispute lead to the registration of an FIR against the private respondents under Sections 465, 467, 468 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 on a complaint made by the appellant. The second to seventh respondents filed petitions before the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash the FIR.
By an interim order, the High Court directed that the investigation may continue but the charge-sheet be filed only with its permission. The eighth and ninth respondents were not named in the FIR. Apprehending arrest, they sought and were granted anticipatory bail. Thereafter, they also filed petitions for quashing of the FIR under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. A draft charge-sheet was placed before the High Court for offences punishable under Sections 385, 389, 418, 477, 506 (2), 120B and 34 of the IPC. The draft charge sheet also contains allegations against the eighth and ninth respondents. The petitions for quashing the FIR were allowed by the High Court which quashed the FIR under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., except for the allegations against the fourth and fifth respondents under Section 385 of IPC in respect of which the investigation was permitted to continue.
Reasoning and Decision of the Court
The Supreme Court held that,
"In its interim order dated 2 May 2016, the High Court allowed the investigation to continue against the accused but directed that the final report cannot be submitted to the Magistrate without its permission. The direction was not supported by any reasoning whatsoever. Even at the interim stage, the High Court must demonstrate an application of mind and furnish reasons for issuing any interlocutory direction, which is capable of being tested before this Court in an appropriate case. The interim direction amounted to an unnecessary interference in the investigative process envisaged under the CrPC. The High Court transgressed the scope of the powers conferred upon it by restricting the police from submitting the charge-sheet before the Magistrate and by further perusing the contents of the “draft charge-sheet” in the proceedings before it."
The Court further clarified that,
"We would like to clarify that a distinct position arises when the charge-sheet has been filed before a Magistrate and proceedings under Section 482 are pending before the High Court. In such cases, the High Court must take into consideration the material collected during the investigation."
Case Details
Case Name: Jitul Jentilal Kotecha v. State of Gujarat & Ors. Etc
Case Number: Criminal Appeal Nos 1328-1333 of 2021
Read Order@LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
