RAVURI KRISHNA MURTHY versus THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS
[2021] 2 S.C.R. 986, Supreme Court of India, 2021
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Body
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
986
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 2 S.C.R.
RAVURI KRISHNA MURTHY
v.
THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 274 – 275 of 2021)
MARCH 05, 2021
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Blanket order
of protection from arrest – Sustainability of – The High Court stayed
all the proceedings in a suit OS No. 274 of 2014 and directed the
District Collector, to submit report in respect of allegation involving
fabrication of the judgment and decree dated 11.11.2014 in the
said suit – 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 was passed by the
Sub-Divisional Magistrate in OS No. 274 of 2014 on 11.11.2014 –
The High Court directed the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to take
necessary action on the administrative side – FIR was registered u/
ss. 420, 468 and 471 r/w. 34 IPC – Second and third respondents
were served with notices u/s.41A of the Cr.P.C. – This was followed
by the proceedings before the High Court for the quashing of the
FIR – The High Court dismissed the petition filed by the second and
third respondents u/s. 482 Cr.P.C.– While the High Court did not
grant relief to the second respondent, it issued a final direction,
restraining the arrest of the third respondent – The second
respondent was arrested and produced before the Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate – Whether the High
Court was justified in passing a
blanket direction of restraining 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 u/s. 482 – Held:
The High Court was justified in declining to exercise its jurisdiction
u/s. 482 and, therefore, rejected the application for quashing the
proceedings – Equally, there was no basis or justification for
directing that the third respondent should not be arrested and that
the Investigating Officer must complete the investigation and file a
final report u/s.173 Cr.P.C. without arresting the third respondent –
Such a direction by the High Court has the effect of impeding the
[2021] 2 S.C.R. 986
986
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
987
course of the investigation and has no basis or justification in law
– A person in the position of the third respondent has remedies
available under the Code of Criminal Procedure to protect his liberty
by either seeking anticipatory bail u/s. 438 Cr.P.C. or applying for
regular bail u/s. 439 – A blanket direction of the nature which was
issued by the High Court would completely dislocate the investigation
and cause a serious obstruction in the enforcement of criminal justice
– The said direction of the High Court is unsustainable in law – The
impugned judgment and order of the High Court, insofar as it
restrains the Investigating Officer from arresting the third respondent
is set aside.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The High Court was of the view that (i) the truth
of the allegations was a matter which had to be ascertained by
the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation; and
(ii) in view of the seriousness of the allegations, no relief was
being granted to the second respondent (the first accused).
However, the High Court proceeded to issue a blanket restraint
against the arrest of the third respondent (the second accused)
by directing that the police would complete the investigation and
file a final report in accordance with law. This Court is affirmatively
of the view that the direction of the High Court is unsustainable
in law. The narration in the earlier part of the judgment would
indicate that the registration of the FIR
was preceded by a report
submitted by the Collector 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
FIR has been registered involving a serious allegation in regard
to the fabrication of judicial records. [Para 8][991-E-G; 992-A]
2. The High Court was justified in declining to exercise its
jurisdiction under Section 482 and, therefore, rejected the
application for quashing the proceedings. Equally, there was no
basis or justification for directing that the third respondent should
not be arrested and that the Investigating Officer must complete
RAVURI KRISHNA MURTHY v. THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AND OTHERS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
988
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 2 S.C.R.
the investigation and file a final report under Section 173 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure without arresting the third
respondent. Such a direction by the High Court has the effect of
impeding the course of the investigation and has no basis or
justification in law. The petition under section 482 was for quashing
the FIR. The High Court found no substance in the petition. The
matter should have ended there. The order restraining arrest
was not in aid of further proceedings. Indeed, the proceedings
were at an end once the High Court declined to quash the FIR. A
person in the position of the third respondent has remedies
available under the Code of Criminal Procedure to protect his
liberty by either seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 or applying for regular bail
under Section 439. A blanket direction of the nature which has
been issued by the High Court would completely dislocate the
investigation and cause a serious obstruction in the enforcement
of criminal justice. Such an order ought not to have been passed
by the High Court. What compounds matters is that there is not
a word in justification in the order of the High Court for issuing
such a direction. The High Court has been oblivious to the serious
nature of the allegations, involving the tampering of a judicial
record. This Court disapproves of the course followed by the
High Court. It has no foundation in law.
[Para 10][993-B-F]
The State of Telangana vs. Habib Abdullah Jeelani and
Ors. (2017) 2 SCC 779 : [2017] 1 SCR 141 – relied
on.
Case Law Reference
[2017] 1 SCR 141
relied on
Para 9
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
Nos.274-275 of 2021
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.04.2016 & 27.07.2016 of
the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana &
the State of Andhra Pradesh in Criminal Petition Crl.P.No. 6165 of 2016
& CRLMP No. 10845 of 2016 in Criminal Petition Crl. P.No. 6165 of
2016.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
989
G.V.R. Choudary, K. Shivraj Choudhuri, Advs. for the Appellant.
Ms. Bina Madhwan, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Ms. Sweena Nair,
Anukul Raj, Kumar Dushyant Singh, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. By an order dated 25 April 2016, a Single Judge of the High
Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed a petition under Section 482 of the
Code 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 his lawyer and that the advocate and client
colluded to fabricate a sale deed in respect of the property. Moreover, it
was alleged that the second respondent instituted a suit, OS No 274 of
2014, before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam,
Khammam seeking a perpetual injunction against the appellant
in respect
of the suit property on the basis of a fabricated sale deed dated 30
November 2005. It has been alleged that the records in OS No 274 of
2014 were tampered with by fabricating an ex-parte judgment and decree
dated 11 November 2014 in favour of the second respondent. Moreover,
it was alleged that the second respondent filed a Civil Revision Petition
(CRP No 4711 of 2014) before the High Court with a grievance that the
Sub Divisional Magistrate was not adjudicating upon the dispute. The
appellant is alleged to have filed Civil Miscellaneous Revision Petition
No 6433 of 2014 in Civil Revision Petition No 4711 of 2014, seeking a
stay of further proceedings in IA No 149 of 2014 in OS No 274 of 2014
pending the disposal of the Civil Revision. It was alleged that the second
and third respondents had tampered with the records relating to OS No
274/2014 and in the process, had also tampered with the docket sheet of
RAVURI KRISHNA MURTHY v. THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AND OTHERS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
990
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 2 S.C.R.
the Mobile Court by fabricating an ex-parte decree dated 11 November
2014.
4. The High Court by its order dated 12 December 2014 stayed
all the proceedings in OS No 274 of 2014 and directed the District
Collector, Khammam to submit a report 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, FIR 62/2016 was registered under Sections
420, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code at the
Charminar Police Station and the investigation was taken up. During the
course of the investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the
statements of various persons. The second and third respondents were
served with notices under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure
1973. This led to the institution of the proceedings before the High Court
for quashing the FIR, in the form of Criminal Petition No 6165 of 2016.
The High Court byits judgment
dated 25 April 2016 dismissed the petition
filed by the second and third respondents under Section 482. While the
High Court did not grant relief to the second respondent, it issued a final
direction, restraining the arrest of the third respondent. As regards the
second respondent, it has emerged from the counter affidavit which has
been filed by the State that he was arrested on 23 March 2017 and
produced before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally. The
counter affidavit states that during the course of the investigation, it has
emerged that the second and third respondents took the aid of a
Magisterial clerk (the third accused). On 3 August 2018, a charge-sheet
has been submitted to the competent court against the three accused.
The case, namely, CC No 465/2018 is pending on the file of the Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad.
6. The principal issue which arises in these proceedings is whether
the High Court was justified in passing a blanket direction of the nature
as it did, restraining the police from arresting the third respondent, while
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
991
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.
Considering the seriousness of the allegations, this Court is not
inclined to grant any relief to the first petitioner-A.1. As far as
second petitioner-A.2 is concerned, the police concerned are
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 second petitioner-A.2 is directed appear
before the investigating agency as and when required and
cooperate with the investigating agency.”
7. We have heard Mr G V R Choudary, learned counsel for the
appellant, Ms Bina Madhavan, learned Counsel for the State and Mr
Anukul Raj, learned counsel for the second and third respondents.
8. The High Court was of the view that (i) the truth of the
allegations was a matter which had to be
ascertained by the Investigating
Officer during the course of investigation; and (ii) in view of the
seriousness of the allegations, no relief was being granted to the second
respondent (the first accused). However, the High Court proceeded to
issue a blanket restraint against the arrest of the third respondent (the
second accused) by directing that the police would complete the
investigation and file a final report in accordance with law. We are
affirmatively of the view that the direction of the High Court is
unsustainable in law. The narration in the earlier part of the judgment
would indicate that the registration of the FIR was preceded by a report
submitted by the Collector, Khammam 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
RAVURI KRISHNA MURTHY v. THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AND OTHERS [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
992
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 2 S.C.R.
administrative side in accordance with law. An FIR has been registered
involving a serious allegation in regard to the fabrication of judicial records.
9. In The State of Telangana vs. Habib Abdullah Jeelani and
Ors.1, 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 persons during
investigation. This Court held that that such a direction amounted to an
exercise under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure without
satisfying any of the conditions stipulated under that section. This Court
held:
“16. In the instant case, the High Court has not referred to
allegations made in the FIR or what has come out in the
investigation. It has noted and correctly that the investigation is in
progress and it is not appropriate to stay the investigation of the
case. It has disposed of the application Under Section 482 Code
of Criminal Procedure and while doing that it has directed that the
investigating agency shall not arrest the accused persons. This
direction “amounts” to an order Under Section 438 Code of
Criminal Procedure, albeit without satisfaction of the conditions
of the said provision. This is legally unacceptable.
……………
23……..What needs to be stated here is that the States where
Section 438 Code of Criminal
Procedure has not been deleted
and kept on the statute book, the High Court should be well advised
that while entertaining petitions Under Article 226 of the
Constitution or Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, exercise
judicial restraint. We may hasten to clarify that the Court, if it
thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the
self-restraint imposed by law, has the jurisdiction to quash the
investigation and may pass appropriate interim orders as thought
apposite in law, 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
1 (2017) 2 SCC 779
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
993
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 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 application for
quashing the proceedings. Equally, there was no basis or justification for
directing that the third respondent should not be arrested and that the
Investigating Officer must complete the investigation and file a final
report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure without
arresting the third respondent. Such a direction by the High Court has
the effect of impeding the course of the investigation and has no basis or
justification in law. The petition under section 482 was for quashing the
FIR. The High Court found no substance in the petition. The matter
should have ended there. The order restraining arrest was not in aid of
further proceedings. Indeed, the proceedings were at an end once the
High Court declined to quash the FIR. A person in the position of the
third respondent has remedies available under the Code of Criminal
Procedure to protect his liberty by either seeking anticipatory bail under
Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 or applying for
regular bail under Section 439. A
blanket direction of the nature which
has been issued by the High Court would completely dislocate the
investigation and cause a serious obstruction in the enforcement of
criminal justice. Such an order ought not to have been passed by the
High Court. What compounds matters is that there is not a word in
justification in the order of the High Court for issuing such a direction.
The High Court has been oblivious to the serious nature of the allegations,
involving the tampering of a judicial record. We disapprove of the course
followed by the High Court. It has no foundation in law.
11. We accordingly allow the appeals and set aside the impugned
judgment and order of the High Court dated 25 April 2016, insofar as it
restrains the Investigating Officer from arresting the third respondent
(the second accused).
12. We clarify that we have not interfered with the dismissal of
the petition for quashing the petition under Section 482. Since the charge-
sheet has been submitted, as stated in the counter affidavit on behalf of
the State of Tamil Nadu, the third respondent shall surrender before the
RAVURI KRISHNA MURTHY v. THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AND OTHERS [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
994
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 2 S.C.R.
competent court within two weeks and apply for regular bail. Any such
application shall be considered after hearing the public prosecutor and
bearing in mind the requirement of the investigating agency.
13. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Ankit Gyan
Appeals allowed.