0
0
Refusing to quash criminal proceedings, HC cannot issue directions for ‘no arrest’ or ‘no coercive action’ till final report is filed: Supreme Court reiterates
The Supreme Court, while refusing to quash criminal proceedings, said the Supreme Court, while refusing to quash the criminal proceedings, cannot issue directions for “no arrest” or “no coercive action” till the final report is filed.
A bench of Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna observed that the Supreme Court rejected the practice of passing orders of “no arrest” or “no coercive action” when the petition to be dismissed was itself dismissed.
The bench said,
“In the case of “Niharika Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors., 2021 SCC Online sc 315”, this Court has rejected the practice where such practice of “no arrest” or “no coercive action” by the High Courts. Unless the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the CrPC and/or Article 226 of the Constitution of India has refused to quash the criminal proceedings.
Niharika Infrastructure Pvt Ltd v State of Maharashtra & Ors LL 2021 SC 211, Supreme Court had asked the High Courts not to pass such orders, “We caution the High Courts against passing such orders again.” that “no coercive step should be taken” until the investigation is completed and the final report is not filed, while the dismissal petitions under Section 482 CrPC and Article 226 of the Constitution of India are not entertained. is done.
The accused in a criminal writ petition filed in PS Noida Sector-49, Gautam Budh Nagar under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B Indian Penal Code seeking quashing of the FIR dated 19.11.2019, Allahabad High Court had knocked on the door.
It was submitted that two maternal uncles of the accused were killed and they are eye-witnesses of these murders. As the accused and their family members feared a threat to their lives from the alleged murders, U.P. He was provided with a gunner.
️Gunner has withdrawn on 01.09.2008 under pressure from the government’s alleged killers on the orders of the High Court. It was claimed that the FIR was registered on a complaint that protection was obtained by the accused from the High Court by forged documents and from the FIR, it was argued that no offense could be made out against the accused. , AGA Appeared on behalf of the State that the FIR discloses a cognizable offense.
The High Court had directed as follows,
️ “It is directed that both the petitioners i.e. Amit Yadav and Arun Yadav shall not be arrested in the above case unless a police report under section 173(2) CrPC, if any, is submitted.” But he will cooperate in the investigation of the matter.”
Case Title: Priyanka Yadav Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
Criminal Appeal No. 292 of 2022
