2009 JTR(SC) 536
2009 2 ACR 2063 ; 2009 3 ADJ 322 ; 2009 84 AIC 84 ; 2009 Supp AIR(SC) 2178 ; 2010 1 ALD(Cri)(SC) 527 ; 2009 67 AllCriC 966 ; 2010 1 CalLT(SC) 9 ; 2009 2 CCR(SC) 206 ; 2009 CriLR 629 ; 2009 2 Crimes(SC) 4 ; 2009 3 JCC 2180 ; 2009 7 JT 327 ; 2009 Supp3 KLT 77 ; 2009 3 RCR(Cri) 401 ; 2009 4 Scale 77 ; 2009 4 SCC 437 ; 2009 2 SCC(Cri) 330 ; 2009 4 SCR 1027 ; 2009 4 UJ 1588 ; 2009 KHC 4545 ; 2009 2 Supreme 600
2009(2) Supreme 600
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Markandey Katju and V.S. Sirpurkar, JJ.
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh — Appellant
vesus
State of U.P. & Ors. — Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 538 of 2009
[Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 7021 of 2007]
Decided on : 23-03-2009
IMPORTANT POINT
In appropriate cases interim bail should be granted pending disposal of the final bail application, since arrest and detention of a person can cause irreparable loss to a person’s reputation.
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.136
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.218, S.467, S.468, S.471, S.420, S.409
(A) The appeal challenges the refusal of the Allahabad High Court to quash a First Information Report registered under Sections 467 (forgery of valuable security, will or document), 468 (cheating by personation), 471 (using as genuine a forged document or electronic record), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent) and 218 (public servant framing incorrect document with intent to cause injury) of the Indian Penal Code. These sections pertain to fraud, forgery and abuse of trust in a criminal misappropriation context. The impugned order arose from a writ petition filed in the High Court under the respective procedural routes available while preserving the right to challenge the FIR. The appeal invokes Article 136 of the Constitution of India, seeking special leave to prefer the appeal against the impugned judgment dated 3.9.2007.
(B) Key legal principles include that arrest is not mandatory merely because an FIR has been lodged in a cognizable offence; the police must act in accordance with the guidelines laid down in Joginder Kumar, and interim bail may be granted pending disposal of the bail application to prevent irreparable reputational harm. The High Court must not exercise its powers under Article 136 lightly to quash an FIR, and where a charge sheet has been filed and cognizance taken, such an application is not a fit case for quashing. The State of Uttar Pradesh, although not having a statutory provision for anticipatory bail, must follow the principles enunciated by this Court and the Allahabad High Bench.
Facts of the case:
An appeal by special leave was filed against the impugned Judgment dated 3.9.2007 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.13227/2007 challenging the refusal to quash an FIR registered under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 409 and 218 of the Indian Penal Code with the Police Station Mahoba, District Mahoba, Uttar Pradesh. The High Court declined to quash the FIR but directed that if the appellant surrenders within 10 days, the bail application would be considered expeditiously. The State informed the Court that a charge sheet had been filed and cognizance taken, and requested that the Special Leave Petition not be entertained. The appellant apprehended arrest and relied on prior precedents on anticipatory bail.
Findings of Court:
The Court agreed with the High Courts observations in Amaravati vs. State of U.P. that interim bail may be granted even in the absence of a statutory anticipatory bail provision. It held that arrest is not inevitable upon lodging an FIR in a cognizable offence and that the principles laid down in Joginder Kumar must be followed. The Court also found that since charge sheet has been filed and cognizance taken, this was not a fit case for quashing the FIR under Article 136.
Issues:
Whether an FIR registered under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 409 and 218 IPC can be quashed under Article 136 when a charge sheet has already been filed. Whether interim bail can be granted in the absence of a statutory anticipatory bail provision. Whether arrest is mandatory upon registration of an FIR in a cognizable offence.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Court ruled that the High Court should not have exercised its discretion under Article 136 to quash the FIR at that stage, as cognizance had been taken and a charge sheet filed. Interim bail must be granted where appropriate, guided by the principles in Joginder Kumar, and arrest is not mandatory merely because an FIR has been lodged; the police must adhere to the guidelines on arrest and detention. The absence of a statutory anticipatory bail provision in Uttar Pradesh does not preclude the grant of interim bail.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed with costs. The appellant is given time to appear before the trial court on or before 15th April, 2009, and to file an application for bail, which the trial court shall consider on merits and may grant interim bail pending final disposal.
(A) The appeal challenges the refusal of the Allahabad High Court to quash a First Information Report registered under Sections 467 (forgery of valuable security, will or document), 468 (cheating by personation), 471 (using as genuine a forged document or electronic record), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent) and 218 (public servant framing incorrect document with intent to cause injury) of the Indian Penal Code. These sections pertain to fraud, forgery and abuse of trust in a criminal misappropriation context. The impugned order arose from a writ petition filed in the High Court under the respective procedural routes available while preserving the right to challenge the FIR. The appeal invokes Article 136 of the Constitution of India, seeking special leave to prefer the appeal against the impugned judgment dated 3.9.2007.
(B) Key legal principles include that arrest is not mandatory merely because an FIR has been lodged in a cognizable offence; the police must act in accordance with the guidelines laid down in Joginder Kumar, and interim bail may be granted pending disposal of the bail application to prevent irreparable reputational harm. The High Court must not exercise its powers under Article 136 lightly to quash an FIR, and where a charge sheet has been filed and cognizance taken, such an application is not a fit case for quashing. The State of Uttar Pradesh, although not having a statutory provision for anticipatory bail, must follow the principles enunciated by this Court and the Allahabad High Bench.
Facts of the case:
An appeal by special leave was filed against the impugned Judgment dated 3.9.2007 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.13227/2007 challenging the refusal to quash an FIR registered under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 409 and 218 of the Indian Penal Code with the Police Station Mahoba, District Mahoba, Uttar Pradesh. The High Court declined to quash the FIR but directed that if the appellant surrenders within 10 days, the bail application would be considered expeditiously. The State informed the Court that a charge sheet had been filed and cognizance taken, and requested that the Special Leave Petition not be entertained. The appellant apprehended arrest and relied on prior precedents on anticipatory bail.
Findings of Court:
The Court agreed with the High Courts observations in Amaravati vs. State of U.P. that interim bail may be granted even in the absence of a statutory anticipatory bail provision. It held that arrest is not inevitable upon lodging an FIR in a cognizable offence and that the principles laid down in Joginder Kumar must be followed. The Court also found that since charge sheet has been filed and cognizance taken, this was not a fit case for quashing the FIR under Article 136.
Issues:
Whether an FIR registered under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 409 and 218 IPC can be quashed under Article 136 when a charge sheet has already been filed. Whether interim bail can be granted in the absence of a statutory anticipatory bail provision. Whether arrest is mandatory upon registration of an FIR in a cognizable offence.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Court ruled that the High Court should not have exercised its discretion under Article 136 to quash the FIR at that stage, as cognizance had been taken and a charge sheet filed. Interim bail must be granted where appropriate, guided by the principles in Joginder Kumar, and arrest is not mandatory merely because an FIR has been lodged; the police must adhere to the guidelines on arrest and detention. The absence of a statutory anticipatory bail provision in Uttar Pradesh does not preclude the grant of interim bail.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed with costs. The appellant is given time to appear before the trial court on or before 15th April, 2009, and to file an application for bail, which the trial court shall consider on merits and may grant interim bail pending final disposal.
For the Appellant :Imtiaz Ahmed (M/s. Equity Lex Associates), Advocate.
For the Respondents:S.R. Singh, Sr. Adv., Sandeep Singh, Anil Kumar Jha, Advocates.
ORDER
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Leave granted.
3. The appeal by Special leave has been filed against the impugned Judgment dated 3.9.2007 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.13227/2007. The aforesaid writ Petition was filed for quashing the F.I.R. in case Crime No.1133/2007 under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 409 and 218 I.P.C., Police Station Mahoba, District Mahoba, U.P.
4. By the impugned Judgment, the High Court refused to quash the F.I.R. but directed that if the appellant surrenders within 10 days, his bail application will be considered and disposed of expeditiously.
5. Aggrieved by that order this appeal has been filed.
6. By an interim order dated 30.11.2007 this Court directed that the petitioner shall not be arrested in the meanwhile.
7. We are today informed by Shri S.R.Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of U.P. that charge sheet has been filed and congnizance has been taken and the case is now pending before the trial Court. In these circumstances, he submitted that we should not exercise our discretion under Article 136 of the Constitution of India for quashing the F.I.R.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant apprehends that the appellant will be arrested as there is no provision for anticipatory bail in the State of U.P. He placed reliance on a decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Amaravati Vs. State of U.P.1 2005 Crl.L.J 755 in which a Seven Judge Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court held that the Court, if it deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, may grant interim bail pending final disposal of the bail application. The Full Bench also observed that arrest is not a must whenever an F.I.R. of a cognizable offence is lodged. The Full Bench placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Joginder Kumar Vs. State of U.P.,2 1994 Cr.L.J.1981.
9. We fully agree with the view of the High in Amaravati’s case (supra), and we direct that the said decision be followed by all Courts in U.P. in letter and spirit, particularly since the provision for anticipatory bail does not exist in U.P. In appropriate cases interim bail should be granted pending disposal of the final bail application, since arrest and detention of a person can cause irreparable loss to a person’s reputation, as held by this Court in Joginder Kumar’s case (supra). Also, arrest is not a must in all cases of cognizable offences, and in deciding whether to arrest or not the police officer must be guided and act according to the principles laid down in Joginder Kumar’s case (supra).
10. Since, charge sheet has been filed and cognizance has been taken, and on the facts of this case, in our opinion, this is not a fit case for quashing the first information report. The Appeal is dismissed, However, the appellant is granted time to appear before the trial Court on or before 15th April, 2009 and to file an application for bail. If such an application is filed, the trial Court shall consider the same on its own merits in accordance with law, and if it so deems fit, grant interim bail to the appellant pending the final disposal of his bail application.
11. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Registrar General of the Allahabad High Court who will circulate it to all Hon’ble Judges of the High Court and send copies to all District Judges in the State.
***********