Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh set aside the Allahabad High Court’s orders which, while refusing to quash an FIR, directed the police to complete investigation within 90 days and granted the accused protection from arrest until the trial court takes cognizance. The case concerns allegations that arms licences were obtained and processed through forged identity documents, false affidavits and concealment of material particulars, prompting registration of offences relating to cheating, forgery and arms licensing. Relying on Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021), the Court said “no arrest/no coercive steps” directions while dismissing a quashing plea effectively grant anticipatory bail without applying the statutory tests, describing such orders as inconceivable. The State’s appeals were allowed, with interim protection continued for two weeks.

The matter arose from a common First Information Report registered following an inquiry initiated by the Special Task Force pursuant to an anonymous complaint alleging procurement and use of arms licences through forged documents and false affidavits. The inquiry involved examination of licence records, documentary material, and statements, culminating in a recommendation for registration of a criminal case.

Also Read: Delay In Depositing Balance Sale Consideration Doesn’t Render Specific Performance Decree Inexecutable; Supreme Court

Separate writ petitions were filed before the High Court by the accused persons seeking quashing of the FIR. The High Court declined to quash the FIRs but disposed of the petitions by directing completion of investigation within a fixed period and granting protection from arrest until cognizance was taken by the competent court.

The State challenged these directions before the Supreme Court, contending that the High Court, while refusing to quash the proceedings, could not impose timelines on investigation or grant blanket protection from arrest, particularly in view of binding precedent governing the exercise of writ jurisdiction in criminal matters.

The Court observed that “the writ jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution is wide and extends to criminal matters as well.” It noted that High Courts have intervened in criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process and to protect fundamental rights, while also recognising limits on such intervention.

On the issue of directing time-bound investigation, the Court recorded that “investigation of an offence is a long, winding road” and is affected by multiple variables, including availability of evidence, conduct of witnesses, and judicial interventions. It stated that while delay cannot be justified indefinitely, “directing a time-bound investigation must remain the exception rather than the norm.”

The Court further observed that ““timelines are not drawn by the Court to be followed by the investigators/the executive right from the beginning, for that would clearly amount to stepping on the toes of the latter. Timelines are therefore imposed at a point where not doing so would have adverse consequences i.e., there is material on record demonstrating undue delays, stagnation, or the like. In sum, timelines are imposed reactively and not prophylactically. As such, the timelines imposed by the High Court need to be interfered with and set aside.”

With respect to protection from arrest, the Court recorded that reliance on an earlier High Court decision without examination of factual similarity was legally impermissible. It cited the settled position that “every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved, or assumed to be proved.”

Also Read: If Not Punished, Sociopaths Like The Accused Are Likely To Repeat Such Offences : Karnataka High Court Convicts Man For Criminal Contempt Over False Allegations Against CAT Members And Judges

Referring to observation from the Neeharika Infrastructure (supra) the Court quoted: “it is absolutely inconceivable and unthinkable to pass an order directing the police not to arrest till the investigation is completed while declining to interfere or expressing opinion that it is not appropriate to stay the investigation.”

The Court held that the High Court’s condition granting interim protection from arrest could not stand and accordingly “we set aside the condition. The State’s Appeals are allowed. Interim protection in favour of the respondents herein shall continue to operate for the next two weeks, after which, all actions as permissible in law will follow. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Ms. Ruchira Goel, AOR

For the Respondents: Mr. Pradeep Kumar Rai, Sr. Adv. Ms. Farhat Naim, Adv. Mrs. Rajshree Rai, Adv. Mr. Vinay Kumar Rai, Adv. Ms. Modoyia Kayina, Adv. Mr. Shreyansh Singh, Adv. Mr. Paras Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Parimal Rai, Adv. Mr. Ujjwal Singh Parmar, Adv. Ms. Neha Raj Singh, Adv. Mr. Virendra Singh, Adv. Mr. Harish Gupta, Adv. M/S R And R Law Associates, AOR Mr. Anil Kumar, AOR Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Adv. Mr. Sudip Patra, Adv. Ms. Santosh, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Kumar, Adv. Mr. Yogesh Kumar Goel, Adv. Mr. Prashant Singh, Adv. Ms. Amrita Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Kameshwar Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Babbar, Adv. Ms. Suvarna Swain, Adv. Mr. Yashwant Singh, AOR

Case Title: State of Uttar Pradesh & Another v. Mohd. Arshad Khan & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1480
Case Number: Criminal Appeal Nos. 5610–5612 of 2025
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh