Ravuri Krishna Murthy vs The State Of Telangana

2021 INSC 153 Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal Nos 274-275 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) Nos 6582-6583 of 2020)

Ravuri Krishna Murthy Appellant

Versus

The State of Telangana and Others Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud

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 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 claiming to be an Crl.A.274-275/2021 2

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 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 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 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 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 involving the Crl.A.274-275/2021 3

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 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 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 for quashing the FIR, in

the form of Criminal Petition No 6165 of 2016. 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 the second and third respondents took

the aid of a Magisterial clerk (the third accused). On 3 August 2018, a Crl.A.274-275/2021 4

charge-sheet 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 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 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 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.

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 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 Anukul Raj, learned counsel Crl.A.274-275/2021 5

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 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 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

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 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

1 (2017) 2 SCC 779 Crl.A.274-275/2021 6

under that section. This Court held:

“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 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.

……………

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 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 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 obstruct unscrupulous litigants from invoking the inherent 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 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 Crl.A.274-275/2021 7

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 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 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 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, 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 (the second

accused).

Crl.A.274-275/2021 8

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 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.

….....…...….......………………........J. [Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]

..…....…........……………….…........J. [M R Shah]

New Delhi;

March 5, 2021 CKB Crl.A.274-275/2021 9

ITEM NO.35 Court 6 (Video Conferencing) SECTION II

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos.6582-6583/2020

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 27-07-2016 in CRLMP No.10845/2016 25-04-2016 in CRLP No.6165/2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for The State of Telangana and The State of Andhra Pradesh)

RAVURI KRISHNA MURTHY Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS. Respondent(s)

(With appln.(s) for IA No. 119012/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)

Date : 05-03-2021 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

For Petitioner(s) Mr. G.V.R. Choudary, Adv.

Mr. K. Shivraj Choudhuri, AOR

For Respondent(s) Ms. Bina Madhwan, Adv. Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, AOR Ms. Sweena Nair, Adv.

Mr. Anukul Raj, Adv. Mr. Kumar Dushyant Singh, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

1 Leave granted.

Crl.A.274-275/2021 10

2 The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed reportable judgment.

3 Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(CHETAN KUMAR) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) A.R.-cum-P.S. Court Master

(Signed Reportable Judgment is placed on the file)