High Courts must clarify ‘no coercive steps to be adopted’ order in criminal pleas, says Supreme Court

A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court on Tuesday held that the High Courts shall not pass orders of “no coercive steps to be adopted” while hearing a petition as it prevents the police from freely investigating the case. If the interim order of “no coercive steps to be adopted” is passed by the High Court, they must clarify the term.

In many criminal cases, when persons accused of crime approach the High courts or the Supreme Court, the courts issue a stay on the investigation or direct that "no coercive steps" will be taken against the accused person, as a relief to the accused. Now, a bench of the Supreme Court has said that this practice is against the principles of law that gives police the right to investigate.A three-judge bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, MR Shah and Sanjiv Khanna, in a detailed judgment on Tuesday, laid down guidelines for how a court can deal with such cases.In essence, the judgment says that except in "exceptional cases where non-interference would result in the miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences".POLICE MUST BE PERMITTED TO COMPLETE INVESTIGATIONIn a case relating to fraud and forgery of documents, the SC bench observed that the High court should not have passed orders saying that "no coercive steps be taken”. The court observed that the police "must be allowed to complete its investigation".The SC bench held that "First information report (FIR) is not an encyclopedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law."The court cited several precedent cases, including a privy council judgment where it was held that there is a "clear cut and well-demarcated sphere of activity in the field of crime detection and crime punishment".The court noted that "Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant Provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence," and "Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences."ON POWER OF QUASHING FIRThe bench has also held that the power of quashing an FIR "should be exercised sparingly with circumspection", adding that "It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on."As far as orders for "no coercive action" are concerned, the bench observed that "Normally, when the investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy and the entire evidence/material is not before the High Court, the High Court should restrain itself from passing the interim order of not to arrest or “no coercive steps to be adopted” and the accused should be relegated to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC before the competent court."COURTS CAN PASS THE ORDER IN EXCEPTIONAL SITUATIONSHowever, the court has clarified that such protection orders could be passed if the court is convinced that it is an exceptional situation."Whenever an interim order is passed by the High Court of “no coercive steps to be adopted” within the aforesaid parameters, the High Court must clarify what does it mean by “no coercive steps to be adopted” as the term “no coercive steps to be adopted” can be said to be too vague and/or broad which can be misunderstood and/or misapplied," the court has held. ALSO READ: SC directs states to inform on condition of migrant children after Covid-19 lockdownALSO READ: Absolutely frivolous: SC dismisses plea seeking removal of 26 verses from Quran, imposes Rs 50,000 fine