Criminal Procedure Code

Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra

(2021) 19 SCC 401

Facts

An FIR concerning alleged commercial and criminal wrongdoing was challenged before the Bombay High Court under Article 226 and Section 482 CrPC.
While the quashing petition remained pending, the High Court directed that no coercive measures should be taken against the accused.
The order did not finally decide whether the FIR disclosed an offence.
It also did not provide adequate reasons explaining why the police should be prevented from taking ordinary investigative steps.
The State challenged the routine use of “no coercive steps” orders, which effectively stalled investigations without formally quashing the FIR. ( )

When may the High Court interfere with an investigation at the FIR stage?
Whether it may routinely grant interim protection against coercive steps while a quashing petition is pending.
What reasons must support such protection?

Police have a statutory duty to investigate where an FIR discloses a cognizable offence.
Courts should not ordinarily:
examine the reliability of evidence;
conduct a mini-trial;
determine disputed facts;
or prevent investigation at its inception.
Quashing is exceptional and applies where, on the face of the FIR:
no offence is disclosed;
proceedings are legally barred;
or continuation is a clear abuse of process.
Interim orders of “no coercive steps” are not a substitute for:
anticipatory bail;
regular bail;
or a final quashing decision.
If extraordinary interim protection is granted, the High Court must:
identify exceptional circumstances;
record reasons;
and avoid obstructing lawful investigation more than necessary.
The accused’s liberty must be protected through remedies provided by law, but the investigating agency must also be allowed to collect evidence.
The corresponding BNSS provisions are Sections 175, 193 and 528. ()

The High Court had not held that the FIR failed to disclose a cognizable offence.
Yet its order prevented the police from taking coercive action.
Such language can effectively prohibit:
arrest;
search;
seizure;
custodial interrogation;
and other lawful measures.
The order therefore produced almost the same practical result as quashing the investigation, despite there being no final adjudication.
The Supreme Court found that this practice disturbed the statutory balance.
A person apprehending arrest could seek anticipatory bail, where the court would apply the established bail factors.
A quashing court should not bypass that structured jurisdiction through an undefined protective order.
The Court also stressed that an FIR is not an encyclopaedia.
At the initial stage, the police may need to investigate precisely because all facts are not yet known.
The High Court cannot reject an investigation merely because:
the accused supplies an innocent explanation;
the dispute contains a commercial element;
or documents require interpretation.
Civil and criminal remedies may coexist.
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court preserved exceptional judicial protection where the FIR is manifestly abusive.
The key requirement is a reasoned demonstration of why the case falls outside the normal rule.

The Supreme Court set aside the unexplained “no coercive measures” order.
It issued detailed principles requiring High Courts to exercise quashing and interim powers sparingly and through reasoned orders.
The judgment is now the leading authority against routine judicial suspension of police investigations. ( )