NDLI: Salimbhai Hamidbhai Memon Vs. Niteshkumar Maganbhai Patel & Anr.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – s.482
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Disposed Off
Headnote	Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.405, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 – Appellant and the first respondent entered into a deed of partnership under which a firm was constituted – Dispute arose between the parties – FIR was registered – The gravamen of the allegations in the FIR is that: a) The deed of relinquishment which was prepared in relation to certain lands situated was interpolated and forged by the first respondent; b) The deed of dissolution of partnership was fabricated; and c) Despite the settlement dated 24.12.2018, the amount due to the appellant had not been paid and the title to the lands which were purported to be transferred in favour of the appellant is in dispute – The first respondent instituted proceedings u/s. 482 of the Cr.P.C. – An order was initially passed recording the statement of counsel for the first respondent that he was ready and willing to offer a settlement – Since, the parties desired to explore the possibility of a settlement, the proceedings were adjourned – The text of the order of the High Court did not contain any direction restraining the arrest of the first respondent – Thereafter, the first respondent was arrested – When the proceedings were taken up again by the Single Judge of the High Court, the Court recorded the submission of the first respondent that initially, an oral direction was issued by the High Court restraining the arrest of the first respondent – Recording that this statement was not disputed on behalf of the appellant, the Single Judge directed release of the first respondent – The Single Judge, by the impugned order issued an ad interim protection against arrest till the next date of listing – On appeal, held: The procedure followed by the High Court of issuing an oral direction restraining the arrest of the first respondent was irregular – If after hearing the parties, the High Court was of the view that an opportunity should be granted to counsel for the appellant and the first respondent to explore thepossibility of a settlement and, on that ground, an interim protection against arrest ought to be granted, a specific judicial order to that effect was necessary – Oral observations in court are in the course of a judicial discourse – The text of a written order is what is binding and enforceable – Issuing oral directions (presumably to the APP) restraining arrest, does not form a part of the judicial record and must be eschewed – Further, in the instant case, the offences alleged to be involved is of serious nature – The High Court has not alluded to the allegations made in the FIR – This constitutes serious deficiency – The Supreme Court has in various decisions disapproved of interim orders of High Courts which grant stay of arrest or which direct that no coercive steps must be taken against the accused, without assigning reasons – Thus, the impugned order of the High Court is set aside. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Oral directions restraining arrest – Consequences of – Held: Absent a judicial order, the investigating officer would have no official record emanating from the High Court on the basis of which a stay of arrest is enforced – The administration of criminal justice is not a private matter between the complainant and the accused but implicates wider interests of the State in preserving law and order as well as a societal interest in the sanctity of the criminal justice administration – Oral directions restraining arrest by the High Court are liable to cause serious misgivings – Such a procedure is open to grave abuse – Judicial assessments change with the roster – Absent a written record of what has transpired in the course of a judicial proceeding, it would set a dangerous precedent if the parties and the investigating officer were expected to rely on unrecorded oral observations.
Judge	Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud
Neutral Citation	2021 INSC 430
Petitioner	Salimbhai Hamidbhai Memon
Respondent	Niteshkumar Maganbhai Patel & Anr.
SCR	[2021] 8 S.C.R. 281
Judgement Date	2021-08-31
Case Number	884

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Salimbhai Hamidbhai Memon Vs. Niteshkumar Maganbhai Patel & Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Fakhruddin Ahmad Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Anr.

Dr. Monica Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of U. P. & Ors.

Mohd. Yaseen Vs. State of U.p.

Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. K.m. Sharan

Baikunth Singh Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.

Smt. Subha Raj and Anr. Vs. Sankar Sarkar and Anr.

Ketankumar Babulal Patel Vs. Kesarben Jesangji and Ors.

State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Goloconda Unga Swamy and Anr.

Sarvsheel Mago Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.

Salimbhai Hamidbhai Memon Vs. Niteshkumar Maganbhai Patel & Anr.

Salimbhai Hamidbhai Memon Vs. Niteshkumar Maganbhai Patel & Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Fakhruddin Ahmad Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Anr.

Dr. Monica Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of U. P. & Ors.

Mohd. Yaseen Vs. State of U.p.

Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. K.m. Sharan

Baikunth Singh Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.

Smt. Subha Raj and Anr. Vs. Sankar Sarkar and Anr.

Ketankumar Babulal Patel Vs. Kesarben Jesangji and Ors.

State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Goloconda Unga Swamy and Anr.

Sarvsheel Mago Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.

Salimbhai Hamidbhai Memon Vs. Niteshkumar Maganbhai Patel & Anr.