Section 482 CrPC: Interim Protection Order Can Be Passed In Exceptional Cases Giving Brief Reasons: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that the High Courts can pass interim protection order in Section 482 CrPC petitions in exceptional cases by giving brief reasons.

What is frowned upon in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra is the tendency of the courts to pass blanket, cryptic, laconic, nonspeaking orders reading "no coercive steps shall be adopted",  the bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian said.

In this case, the Telangana High Court, in a petition filed by accused under Section 482 CrPC, stayed further proceedings in the matter. The High Court also gave reasons in its order. It also took note of the fact that the criminal case is related to election disputes between the accused and the complainants. 

Before the Apex Court, assailing the High Court order, it was contended that the High Court should not have stayed further proceedings, when on a plain reading of the complaints, cognizable offences are prima facie made out, especially in the teeth of the law laid down in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra & Others and Skoda Auto Volkswagon India Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P.

"22....Neeharika (supra) certainly allowed space for the High Court to pass an interim order of the nature impugned 22 herein, "in exceptional cases with caution and circumspection, giving brief reasons". What is frowned upon in Neeharika (supra) is the tendency of the courts to pass blanket, cryptic, laconic, nonspeaking orders reading "no coercive steps shall be adopted". In Paragraph 60 of the Report in Neeharika (supra), this Court recognized that there may be allegations of abuse of process of law, converting a civil dispute into a criminal dispute, with a view to pressurize the accused. In the order impugned in these petitions, the High Court has given elaborate reasons as to how the allegations of bank fraud were developed during the proceedings concerning allegations of election fraud. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be said to be bad in the light of Neeharika principles.", the bench said while rejecting the contention.

Also referring to State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, the bench observed: 

"In paragraph 37 of the decision in Neeharika, the above passage from Bhajan Lal is extracted. In fact Bhajan Lal (supra) took note of the view expressed by Bhagwati, C.J. in Sheonandan Paswan vs. State of Bihar to the effect "that a criminal prosecution, if otherwise justifiable and based upon adequate evidence, does not become vitiated on account of malafides or political vendetta of the first informant or complainant." Yet Bhajan Lal (supra) laid down seven principles in paragraph 102, the last which we extracted above. The seven principles enunciated in paragraph 102 of Bhajan Lal (a two­ member Bench) are actually quoted with approval in Neeharika (a three ­member Bench)."

Observing thus, the bench dismissed the appeal.

Case: A P Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank Shareholders Welfare Association Vs. Ramesh Kumar Bung [SLP(Crl) 3869 OF 2021]

Coram: Justices Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian

Counsel: Adv  Dil Jit Singh Ahluwalia, for petitioner, Sr. Adv Siddharth Luthra, Sr. Adv Niranjan Reddy for respondents

Citation: LL 2021 SC 309

Click here to Read/Download Judgment