Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma set aside a Telangana High Court order passed in a plea seeking quashing of an FIR alleging offences punishable with less than seven years’ imprisonment, where the High Court had directed the investigating officer to ensure compliance with Section 41A of the Cr.P.C. The Court remitted the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration after hearing the de facto complainant and ordered that no coercive steps be taken against the accused until a new decision is made. It noted that, at the quashing stage, directing Section 41A compliance effectively operates as protection against arrest so long as the accused appears and cooperates, which is in the nature of interim relief.

The dispute arose from an FIR in Telangana in which the allegations were stated to attract offences under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) read with Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, with punishment described as less than seven years. Two accused approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR.

Also Read: Reserved Category Candidate Scoring Higher Than General Category Cut-Off Must Be Placed In Open Post; Supreme Court

Without entering into merits, the High Court directed the accused to appear before the investigating officer within a specified date and time window. It also directed the investigating officer to follow the procedure under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (previously Section 41A of the Cr.P.C.) and the framework indicated in Arnesh Kumar. The order recorded that the accused would submit their defence, cooperate, and furnish information and relevant documents/material sought for investigation.

Before the Supreme Court, the de facto complainant challenged the High Court’s disposal order, contending that the High Court should not have entertained the petition and, in any event, should have heard the de facto complainant; it was also stated that the matter was disposed of on the first day without notice to the State or the de facto complainant. The appeal also raised the issue whether, in a quashing petition, such a direction to ensure compliance with Section 41A could be issued, with reference made to the decision in Neeharika Infrastructure.

The Bench recorded the de facto complainant’s grievance in these terms: “He vehemently submitted that in the first instance the High Court should not have entertained the writ petition and if at all the High Court was inclined to entertain the writ petition at least the defacto complainant who was very much there before the High Court should have been heard.” It also recorded: “He would submit that the matter came to be disposed of by the High Court on the very first day without issuance of any notice, either to the State or to the Defacto Complainant.”

As to precedent, the Court recorded: “The aforesaid proposition of law has been well explained by this Court in its decision in Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra reported in(2021) 19 SCC 401.”

The Court directed: “We are inclined to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the High Court with a direction that let the appellant before us (Defacto complainant) be heard and thereafter the High Court may pass a fresh order. In such circumstances, referred to above, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the High Court. The High Court shall issue notice to the Defacto complainant i.e. the appellant herein, hear him and then pass the final order.”

Also Read: Right To Property A Constitutional Right; Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Local Investigation In Encroachment Suit After Finding Local Commissioner Report Vague

“However, we make it clear that till the High Court decides afresh, no coercive steps be taken against the respondent nos. 2 and 3, respectively, before us.”

On the scope of orders in a quashing petition, the Bench observed: “We also take notice of the fact that infact the petition before the High Court was to quash the FIR. In a petition where quashing of the FIR is prayed for, the High Court should not have passed an order directing the Investigating Officer to comply with Section 41-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, “the Cr.PC) because it indirectly amounts to granting a relief which High Court could have considered only if a prima facie case for quashing of the FIR is made out.”

“Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. R. Basant, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Kartik Venu, Adv.; Mr. Siddhartha Iyer, AOR; Mr. R. Jude Rohit, Adv.; Mr. Arjan Ajai Singh Chonker, Adv.; Mr. Naman Vashishtha, Adv.; Mr. Aman Gupta, Adv.; Ms. Srishti Ghoshal, Adv.; Mr. Tonmoy Talukdar, Adv.

Case Title: PRACTICAL SOLUTIONS INC. VERSUS THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS.
Case Number: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO……..… OF 2026 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NO……..... OF 2026 @ DIARY NO.953 OF 2026)
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma