The Supreme Court said today that the courts of Allahabad and Uttarakhand are issuing orders “without using their minds” for no coercion or protection from arrest, despite the previous order asking them to use the inherent power sparingly.
A bench of judges DY Chandrachud and MR Shah said: “We have seen two high courts Allahabad and Uttarakhand issue these injunctions without application of spirit even after our verdict in M/S Neeharika, Infrastructure vs State of Maharashtra in case nullification petitions “.
The Supreme Court’s comments came while hearing a petition against an injunction passed by the Uttarakhand Supreme Court on a plea for the destruction of the FIR in a murder case.
“This is a serious matter. The FIR is registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Just look at the Supreme Court’s concern, it stipulates that the person must surrender before 10 August and bail on the same day and if the bail request is denied, the Session Court should hear the bail request the same day,” the bank said.
“This is a shocking order,” it said, adding that the Supreme Court has included in its order that the prayer for destruction of FIR is not pressed and that other prayers for it are “innocent” and therefore the accused must appear before August 10. surrender and have to pay a deposit. application, if submitted, will be considered and decided the same day.
The Supreme Court said it will investigate the matter and has informed the government of Uttarakhand of the plea against the order of the high court.
On April 13, the same Supreme Court bench had issued a slew of clues in the Neeharika case, Infrastructure vs. Maharashtra, saying that the police have a legal right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure to provide an identifiable violation and courts would not thwart any investigation into the identifiable offences.
It had said that in rare cases the power to destroy should be exercised with moderation and prudence; only where no identifiable offense or offense of any kind is stated in the FIR will the Court not allow an investigation to continue.
“During the investigation of an FIR/complaint, for which annulment is sought, the court cannot commence an investigation into the reliability or authenticity or otherwise of the allegations in the FIR/complaint,” the highest court had said, adding that the criminal proceedings may not be sunk at the initial stage.
It had pointed out that quashing a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than a common rule, adding that “usually the courts should not usurp the jurisdiction of the police, as the two bodies of the stands to operate in two specific spheres of activities and one should not enter the other sphere”.
The Supreme Court had said that the Court’s extraordinary and inherent powers do not confer arbitrary powers on the Court to act upon its whims or whims.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NewsMadura staff and has been published from a syndicated feed.)