RAVURI KRISHNA MURTHYversusTHE STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS

986                      [2021]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT    2 S.C.R. 986                [2021] 2 S.C.R.


A                       RAVURI KRISHNA MURTHY
                                        v.
                THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS
                    (Criminal Appeal Nos. 274 – 275 of 2021)
B                               MARCH 05, 2021
              [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
                         M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
             Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Blanket order
C     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
D     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
E
      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
F     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
G
      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 –
H     Such a direction by the High Court has the effect of impeding the
                                       986
RAVURI KRISHNA MURTHY v. THE STATE OF TELANGANA                           987
                 AND OTHERS

course of the investigation and has no basis or justification in law      A
– 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
                                                                          B
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                                     C

        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).               D
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         E
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             F
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               G
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

                                                                          H
988            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2021] 2 S.C.R.


A     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
B
      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
C     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
D
      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
E     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
F
            [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
G     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.

H
RAVURI KRISHNA MURTHY v. THE STATE OF TELANGANA                              989
                 AND OTHERS

      G.V.R. Choudary, K. Shivraj Choudhuri, Advs. for the Appellant.        A
     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.                                       B
      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        C
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            D
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
                                                                             E
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          F
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
                                                                             G
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      H
990             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 2 S.C.R.


A     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
B     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
C     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
D     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
E     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
F     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
G     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
H     as it did, restraining the police from arresting the third respondent, while
RAVURI KRISHNA MURTHY v. THE STATE OF TELANGANA                                 991
 AND OTHERS [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

at the same time having come to the conclusion that there was no merit          A
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               B
      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.                                                               C

      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   D
      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               E
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       F
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               G
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         H
992                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 2 S.C.R.


A     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
B     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:
C
               “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
D              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.
E              ……………
               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
F              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
G              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
H         (2017) 2 SCC 779
RAVURI KRISHNA MURTHY v. THE STATE OF TELANGANA                               993
 AND OTHERS [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

      obstruct unscrupulous litigants from invoking the inherent              A
      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          B
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        C
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          D
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              E
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,   F
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       G
(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      H
994                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2021] 2 S.C.R.


A     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.

B
      Ankit Gyan                                                    Appeals allowed.




C




D




E




F




G




H