Allahabad, Uttarakhand HCs passing orders in quashing of FIR cases 'without application of mind': SC

The court's remarks came while hearing a petition against an order of Uttarakhand HC on a plea for quashing of the FIR in a murder case

The Supreme Court on Monday expressed its displeasure, saying the Allahabad and Uttarakhand High Courts continued to pass orders for no coercive action or protection from arrest for accused in heinous offences, despite its earlier judgement suggesting use of such inherent power sparingly.

“We have seen two High Courts of Allahabad and Uttarakhand are passing these orders without application of mind even after our judgement in M/s Neeharika, Infrastructure versus State of Maharashtra in petitions for quashing of cases,” a bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and M R Shah said.

The court's remarks came while hearing a petition against an order of Uttarakhand High Court passed on a plea for quashing of the FIR in a murder case.

“This is a serious matter. The FIR was registered under section 302 of IPC. Just see the anxiety of the High Court, it directs that the person should surrender by August 10 and the bail be decided on the same day and if the bail application is rejected, then the Session Court should hear the bail plea the same day,” the bench said.

“This is a shocking order”, it said, adding that the high court recorded in its order that prayer of quashing of FIR is not pressed and other prayers before it are “innocuous” and therefore the accused should surrender before August 10 and a bail application, if presented, shall be considered and decided the same day.

The top court said it will examine the issue and issued notice to the Uttarakhand government on the plea challenging the High Court order.

On April 13, the same bench had passed a slew of directions in Neeharika, Infrastructure versus Maharashtra case and said that police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure to investigate into a cognisable offence and courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognisable offences.

It had said that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in rare cases; only where no cognisable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the FIR that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on.