- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State Of Maharashtra And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner lodged an FIR on 19-09-2019 which was registered by the Economic Offences Wing as EC Crime No. 82 of 2019 for alleged offences under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860. On 15-10-2019, the 37th Additional Sessions Judge, City Sessions Court, Mumbai, granted interim protection from arrest to the second, third and fourth respondents under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The interim protection required the respondents to attend the police station on specified dates and to cooperate in the investigation.
According to the investigating officer, the respondents did not cooperate, and communications to this effect were sent to the Sessions Court on 17-12-2019. The interim protection granted by the Sessions Court was repeatedly extended. Almost a year later, the respondents filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, which on 28-09-2020 passed an order directing that “no coercive measures” be adopted against them in respect of the same FIR.
The present proceeding concerns an order of the Supreme Court dated 26-10-2020 issuing notice on the petitioner’s challenge to the High Court’s blanket protection and granting an ad-interim stay of paragraph (d) of the High Court’s order.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Bombay High Court was justified in issuing a blanket direction restraining the investigating agency from taking coercive measures against the respondents when the Sessions Court had already granted them limited interim protection under Section 438 CrPC.
- Whether the Supreme Court should stay paragraph (d) of the High Court’s order dated 28-09-2020 pending further hearing.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The Sessions Court had already granted interim protection subject to conditions requiring the respondents to cooperate, making the High Court’s blanket “no coercive measures” order unnecessary and an abuse of process.
- The investigating officer reported non-cooperation by the respondents, yet the High Court granted relief without recording reasons.
- The blanket protection impedes effective investigation and exceeds the scope of the relief needed.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| P. Suresh Kumar case, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 1711 (High Court Order) | Impugned order that restrained the investigating agency from taking coercive measures. | The Supreme Court granted an ad-interim stay of paragraph (d) of this order. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court noted the challenge to the High Court’s blanket protection order and found it appropriate to examine the matter. Without providing an extensive analysis at this stage, the Court:
- Issued notice to the respondents and the State of Maharashtra.
- Granted ad-interim stay of paragraph (d) of the High Court’s order, thereby lifting the blanket bar on coercive measures.
- Clarified that the stay does not disturb the interim protection earlier granted by the Sessions Court.
The order indicates the Court’s preliminary view that the High Court’s direction required scrutiny, especially in light of the existing, condition-based protection granted by the Sessions Court.
Holding and Implications
AD-INTERIM STAY GRANTED — Paragraph (d) of the Bombay High Court’s order dated 28-09-2020 is stayed until the next date of listing; the interim orders of the Sessions Court remain unaffected.
Implications: The investigating agency is no longer restrained by the High Court’s blanket “no coercive measures” directive and may proceed in accordance with law, subject to the conditional protections already in place from the Sessions Court. The decision is interim and sets no new precedent at this stage.
Order
1. On 19-9-2019, the petitioner lodged a first information report which has been registered with the Economic Offences Wing as EC Crime No. 82 of 2019 for alleged offences under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860. Three orders were passed by the 37th Additional Sessions Judge, City Sessions Court, Mumbai on 15-10-2019 under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”) granting interim protection from arrest to the second, third and fourth respondents.
2. Mr Shyam Divan, learned Senior Counsel submits that the above orders required the respondents to attend the police station on 17-10-2019, 19-10-2019 and 22-10-2019 and to cooperate in the investigation. Mr Divan submits that on 17-12-2019, the investigating officer in the EOW addressed communications to the Sessions Court stating that the accused were not cooperating in the investigation. Moreover, it has been submitted that the protection which was granted by the Sessions Court was extended from time to time and nearly a year thereafter, a writ petition was moved before the Bombay High Court in which a blanket order has been passed on 28-9-2020 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 1711 in the following terms: (P. Suresh Kumar case 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 1711, SCC OnLine Bom para 3)
“3. … (d) In the meanwhile, no coercive measures shall be adopted against the petitioners in respect of the FIR No. 367 of 2019 dated 19-9-2019, registered at Worli Police Station, Mumbai, Maharashtra (subsequently transferred to Economic Offence Wing, Unit IX, Mumbai and has been numbered as CR No. 82 of 2019).”
It has been submitted that since the second, third and fourth respondents were protected by an interim stay of arrest by the Sessions Court, there was no occasion to seek a blanket direction of the High Court restraining the investigating officer from taking coercive measures and such an application is an abuse of the process. It has been urged that the High Court passed 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 1711 an order directing that no coercive measures would be adopted without any reasons being indicated.
3. Issue notice, returnable on 26-10-2020. Liberty to serve the Standing Counsel for the State of Maharashtra, in addition. Dasti, in addition, permitted on the second, third and fourth respondents.
4. There shall, until the next date of listing, be an ad interim stay of the above direction contained in para (d) of the impugned order of the High Court dated 28-9-2020 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 1711. However, this will not affect the interim orders passed by the Sessions Court.
Court Masters
Alert