The Supreme Court allowed the State’s appeals, setting aside the Allahabad High Court’s directions granting time-bound investigation and blanket protection from arrest till cognizance, while retaining dismissal of the quashing petitions.
The State of Uttar Pradesh filed the appeals challenging High Court orders passed in writ petitions under Article 226 seeking quashing of FIR. The FIR invoked Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Sections 3, 25, 30 of the Arms Act against three respondents for allegedly obtaining and processing arms licences using forged documents and false affidavits. By identically worded orders dated 16 June 2025 and 4 July 2025, the High Court had declined to quash the FIR but directed completion of investigation within 90 days and barred arrest till cognizance.
The State contended that the High Court illegally protected the accused from arrest and fixed a 90-day investigation timeline contrary to the position of law as stet out in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra[1]. The respondents relied on the width of Article 226, the need to protect personal liberty, and the High Court’s power to ensure time-bound investigation and interim protection.
The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh held that while Article 226 remains wide and can be used reactively to curb undue delays or illegal arrests, the High Court cannot prophylactically fix investigation timelines or grant blanket protection absent material showing stagnation, and must not ignore binding precedent.
The Court recognised High Courts’ broad writ powers in criminal matters but stressed that directing time-bound investigation is exceptional and must respond to demonstrated delay or prejudice, not operate as a routine, prospective control of investigation.
On “no arrest” protection, the Court reiterated Neeharika Infrastructure, which deprecates orders directing that an accused not be arrested till completion of investigation or filing of charge-sheet when a quashing petition is dismissed, as such orders are akin to anticipatory bail without satisfying statutory conditions.
In result, the Supreme Court allowed the State’s appeals and set aside the Allahabad High Court’s directions fixing a 90-day deadline for completion of investigation and restraining arrest of the accused till cognizance, while leaving intact the refusal to quash the FIR. The Court directed that interim protection earlier enjoyed by the respondents would continue for two weeks from the date of the judgment, after which the investigating agency may proceed in accordance with law.
Cases relied on:
1. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401
2. Union of India v. Prakash P. Hinduja, (2003) 6 SCC 195
[1] Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401
