Supreme Court: In a writ petition filed by Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited (‘Indiabulls’) praying to lay down appropriate guidelines to be followed by all including the police officials and Judicial Magistrate to desist from initiating or directing initiation of criminal proceedings against the financial institutions, its assignees, management, officers, employees, lawful transferees and purchasers of secured assets at the behest of defaulting borrowers, so as to protect their fundamental rights inter alia guaranteed under Article , and of the , and also prayed for quashing the FIRs, the division bench of Sanjay Kumar and Aravind Kumar, JJ. said that when a party is relegated to the High Court to pursue its remedies, it would not be proper, in the normal course, to bind the said High Court with directions in relation to the proceedings to be impugned before such Court. Thus, when this Court refuses to entertain a matter and asks the party to approach the High Court, it would be improper to grant interim relief to such party. The Court also noted that such directions can be misconstrued by the High Courts to be observations by this Court on the merits of the matter, thereby influencing the adjudication of the case.
The Court reiterated that ordinarily, this Court would be averse and opposed to entertaining miscellaneous applications in disposed of cases. However, it clarified that when the individual facts of a particular case so warrant, there can be no bar to entertaining a clarification/modification petition in a disposed of case. This would necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of that individual case.
Further, the Court noted that Rule 6 of Order LV of the , states that nothing in the said Rules shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent powers of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. Therefore, the Court concluded that if any such abuse of process is noticed after the disposal of the case or if a modification is found essential to meet the ends of justice, this Court would be justified in entertaining an application in a disposed of case and exercising such power.
The Court noted that in the case on hand, the Enforcement Directorate was impleaded as a party respondent in the writ petition on 04-07-2023, by way of the final order disposing of the case. The final order was passed without putting it on notice and affording it an opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the Court concluded that the directions of this Court in the said order cannot be sustained.
Moreover, the Court noted that the final order only records that the interlocutory applications for impleadment and to bring on record additional facts were allowed. Significantly, the application seeking permission to file additional documents/facts/ annexures, was alone reflected in the Record of Proceedings of that day in relation to the writ petition. In effect, the First Information Report (‘FIR’) and Enforcement Case Information Report (‘ECIR’) were not even made the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition.
Further, the Court said that though this Court relegated the writ petitioners to the jurisdictional High Courts for challenging the FIRs registered against them, certain errors crept in by oversight while doing so.
Concerning FIR, the Court noted that it was directed that no coercive steps should be taken in relation thereto against the financial institution and its people till final disposal of such a petition by the High Court.
Thus, the Court said that once, no coercive steps were permitted in connection with the said FIR till the final disposal of the petition which was to be filed, the question of permitting the petitioners to again seek stay of proceedings in relation to the said FIR before the High Court was unnecessary.
The Court emphasised that when a party is relegated to the High Court to pursue its remedies, it would not be proper, in the normal course, to bind the said High Court with directions in relation to the proceedings to be impugned before such Court. Ordinarily, this Court would leave all issues open for the party so relegated to raise and pursue before the High Court.
The Court took note of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, wherein, a 3-Judge Bench laid down guidelines for exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC, cautioning that criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled and Courts, in the usual course, should not thwart investigation into cognizable offences.
The Court also noted that such directions can be misconstrued by the High Courts to be observations by this Court on the merits of the matter, thereby influencing the adjudication of the case.
Thus, the Court opined that the order dated 04-07-2023 requires to be modified. The Court recalled the said order insofar as it pertains to ECIR. The Court permitted that the Allahabad High Court to consider the challenge thereto in the Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition on merits and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations made in the order dated 04-07-2023.
Further, the Court directed that the order dated 04-07-2023 will stand modified by substituting the words ‘till final disposal of the respective petitions…’ in paragraph 8 thereof with the words ‘till the filing of the respective petitions’. Thus, the High Courts in which proceedings have been instituted against the FIRs would be at liberty to entertain applications for interim relief in relation thereto and consider such applications and also the main cases on their own merits and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations made in the order dated 04-07-2023.
The Court directed the Registry to upload and attach a corrigendum to the order dated 04-07-2023 passed in Writ Petition, stating that it stands duly modified by and to the extent indicated in this order.
CASE DETAILS
| Citation: Misc. Application No. 1861 of 2023 Appellants : Gagan Banga Respondents : State of West Bengal | Advocates who appeared in this case For Petitioner(s): For Respondent(s): |
CORAM :
Sanjay Kumar, J.
Aravind Kumar, J.
Buy Constitution of India
The post appeared first on .