Section 482 CrPC - High Court Powers and Limitations

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh in the case of State of U.P. & Anr. v. Mohd Arshad Khan & Anr. (2024) set aside the Allahabad High Court's order which, while declining to quash an FIR, simultaneously imposed a fixed timeline for completion of investigation and granted protection from arrest to the accused until cognizance was taken.

What was the Background of State of U.P. & Anr. v. Mohd Arshad Khan & Anr. (2024) Case? 

• An FIR was registered in Agra in May 2024 following an STF (Special Task Force) investigation. 
• The accused were alleged to have fraudulently obtained multiple arms licences through various means including: 
  • Submitting forged Aadhaar cards, PAN cards and affidavits. 
  • Falsifying dates of birth to project themselves as skilled marksmen. 
• One of the accused was a retired Arms Clerk allegedly involved in facilitating the fraudulent process. 
• The FIR invoked serious offences under the IPC, including Sections 420 (cheating), 467 (forgery of valuable security), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), and 471 (using forged documents as genuine), along with provisions of the Arms Act. 
• The accused approached the Allahabad High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the FIR. 
• The High Court refused to quash the FIR but passed identically worded orders with two key directions: 
  • Directed the investigating officer to complete the investigation within 90 days. 
  • Granted the accused protection from arrest until cognizance was taken by the trial court. 
• These directions were based on the High Court's earlier decision in Shobhit Nehra v. State of U.P. 
• Aggrieved by these directions, the State approached the Supreme Court, referencing the judgment in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021).

What were the Court's Observations? 

On "No Arrest" Protection: 

• The bench referred to the decision of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) to observe that granting "no arrest" or "no coercive steps" orders while dismissing a quashing petition is tantamount to granting anticipatory bail without applying the strict legal tests for it. 
• The Court emphasized that such orders are "inconceivable and unthinkable." 
• The Court quoted from Neeharika Infrastructure: "It is absolutely inconceivable and unthinkable to pass an order directing the police not to arrest till the investigation is completed while declining to interfere or expressing opinion that it is not appropriate to stay the investigation." 
• The Court held that High Courts cannot grant "no arrest" or "no coercive steps" directions while refusing to quash an FIR as such orders are tantamount to granting anticipatory bail without satisfying the statutory requirements. 

On Investigation Timelines: 

• The bench noted that imposing a deadline at the threshold, without any evidence of delay, was premature and constituted an encroachment upon executive functions. 
• The Court clarified that judicially imposed timelines can be directed only in exceptional circumstances and only when there is material on record demonstrating undue delay or stagnation in investigation. 
• The Court observed: "Timelines are not drawn by the Court to be followed by the investigators/the executive right from the beginning, for that would clearly amount to stepping on the toes of the latter." 
• The Court summarized: "Timelines are therefore imposed reactively and not prophylactically." 

Final Directions: 

• The Supreme Court set aside both the 90-day investigation deadline and the blanket protection from arrest granted by the Allahabad High Court. 
• The appeal by the State was allowed. 

What is 482 of CrPC/Section 528 of BNSS?

About:  

• This section was earlier covered under Section 482 of CrPC.   
• Section 528 of BNSS deals with the saving of inherent powers of the High Court.   
• It states that nothing in this Sanhita shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.   
• This section does not confer any inherent power on the High Courts, and it only recognizes the fact that High Courts have inherent powers.   

Purpose:   

• Section 528 of BNSS lays down as to when the inherent power may be exercised.   
• It enumerates three purposes for which the inherent power may be exercised:   
  • to make orders necessary to give effect to any order under the Code.   
  • to prevent abuse of the process of any court.   
  • to secure the ends of justice. 

What are the Landmark Judgements Based on Powers of High Court to Quash the Proceedings? 

• Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State [NCT of Delhi] (2018):  
  • In this case the Court held that the High Court has the power to interfere in the proceedings and quash the FIR against the accused even after filing the chargesheet.  
• Jitha Sanjay and Others v. State of Kerala and Other (2023)  
  • The Kerela High Court in the present case highlighted that courts can quash criminal proceedings if they are found to be vexatious, frivolous, or motivated by an ulterior motive, even if the FIR contains false allegations of an offense. The court observed that complainants with extraneous motives can craft FIRs to include necessary ingredients.  
• Sh. Anupam Gahoi v. State (Govt. of NCT Of Delhi) And Anr (2024):  
  • The Delhi High Court recently quashed a matrimonial case where a husband had sought to invalidate an FIR filed by his wife in 2018 under the CrPC and BNSS.  
• Mama Shailesh Chandra v. State of Uttarakhand (2024):  
  • In this case it was held that even if the charge sheet had been filed, the Court could still examine if offences alleged to have been committed were prima facie made out or not based on the FIR, charge sheet and other document.