Supreme Court - Daily Orders
K. Mallikarjuna Rao vs Sri Chintakayala Ayyannapatruddu on 27 February, 2023
Bench: M.R. Shah, C.T. Ravikumar
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs. OF 2023
(@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos.11617-11618/2022)
K. MALLIKARJUNA RAO & ANR. ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
SRI CHINTAKAYALA AYYANNAPATRUDU & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
By the impugned interim order dated 09.11.2022 passed in IA Nos.2 and 3 of 2022 in Criminal Petition No.8729 of 2022, the High Court has after prima facie opining that the No Objection Certificate (NOC) alleged to have been forged cannot be said to be valuable security under Section 30 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), has directed/permitted the Investigating Agency to further investigate into the crime, however, without applying the provisions of Section 467 of the IPC. Meaning thereby, the High Court has virtually while passing the interim order has quashed the FIR for the offence under Section 467 IPC which ought not to have been done unless and until the petition under Section 482 is finally decided and disposed of. Though, in para 30, the High court has observed that the original respondents Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Neetu Sachdeva Date: 2023.02.28 can always approach the Court for further directions 16:11:43 IST Reason: provided they are able to demonstrate that the NOC said contd..
- 2 -
to have been issued by the de facto complainant answers the description of a valuable security. On the one hand, the High Court has prima facie opined that NOC alleged to have been forged cannot be said to the valuable security under Section 30 of the IPC and on the other hand, the High Court has kept the said question open. Be that as it may, we are of the opinion that such an order directing the Investigating Agency not to investigate into the FIR applying the provisions of Section 467 of the IPC could not have been passed by way of interim order. Granting such order would tantamount to passing the final order. Under the circumstances, the impugned order allowing the I.As in part and directing/permitting the investigating Agency to investigate into the crime without applying the provisions of Section 467 of the IPC cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside.
At this stage, Shri R. Basant, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents has requested that the observations made by the High Court in the impugned order on Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C. be continued.
In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned order passed by the High Court, so far as allowing/permitting the Investigating Agency to investigate into the crime, without applying contd..
- 3 -
the provisions of Section 467 of the IPC is hereby quashed and set aside. Let the High Court finally decide and dispose of the 482 petition in accordance with law and on its own merits at the earliest and preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of present order.
The larger question whe2ther the NOC in question, which is alleged to have been forged can be said to be a valuable security under Section 30 of the IPC, is kept open, to be considered by 2the High Court in accordance with law and on its own merits The present Appeals are accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent.
However, the observations made by the High court in para 30 on application of Section 41 A of the CrPC is directed to be continued without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the State in the pending proceedings, which is reported to be pending against order dated 03.11.2022.
………………………………………J. [M.R. SHAH] ...................... J.
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR) New Delhi;
February 27, 2023.
ITEM NO.15 COURT NO.4 SECTION II
S U P R E M E 2 C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos. 11617-11618/2022
(Arising out of impugned judgment and order dated 09-11-2022 in IA No. 2/2022 and IA No. 3/2022 in Criminal Petition No.8729 of 2022 passed by the High Court Of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati) K. MALLIKARJUNA RAO & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS SRI CHINTAKAYALA AYYANNAPATRUDU & ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.186101/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ) Date : 27-02-2023 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR For Petitioner(s) Mr. Harin P. Raval, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, AOR Mr. Polanki Gowtham, Adv. Mr. K V Girish Chowdary, Adv. Mr. Shaik Mohamad Haneef, Adv. Mr. T Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Adv. Ms. Niti Richhariya, Adv. Ms. Rajeswari Mukherjee, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. R Basant, Sr. Adv.
Mr. D. Abhinav Rao, AOR Ms. Prerna Robin, Adv.
Mr. Rahul Jajoo, Adv.
Mr. Rijuk Sarkar, Adv.
Mr. Harsh Khirwal, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed order.
Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of.
(NEETU SACHDEVA) (NISHA TRIPATHI) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (signed order is placed on the file)