Court cannot issue blanket direction in restraining arrest of accused while dismissing Petition u/s 482 CrPC

On 29th March 2016 a complaint was made in Charminar Police Station, Hyderabad for the possession of land ad-measuring Ac 3-18 guntas situated at Jagannadhapuram Panchayati, Rangapuram Village, Paloncha Mandal, Khammam District, Telangana.

It was stated that client colluded to fabricate a sale deed. An ex-parte judgment and decree dated 11November 2014 in favour of the second respondent was made.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.

The High Court by its 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 2nd & 3rd respondents took the aid of a Magisterial clerk.The issue arrise was was justified in passing a blanket direction of the nature as it did, 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 under Section 482.

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).

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 administrative side in accordance with law.

An FIR has been registered involving a serious allegation in regard to the fabrication of judicial records.

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 CrPC without arresting the 3rd respondent.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s