- The petitioner before the Supreme Court filed 2 complaints against Respondents 1 to 3 before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, and after the investigation by the police on the orders of the Magistrate, a FIR was filed against the respondents.
- The offences complained by the petitioner were under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468,471 and 477A read with 120B of IPC, and immediately after the complaint, the respondents filed two petitions under Section 482 of the CrPC before the High Court.
- The High Court granted a stay to all proceedings in both the complaints and aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has approached the Supreme Court.
- The counsel for the petitioner submitted before the Court that the High Court should not have stayed the proceedings as there was prima facie commission of the cognizable offence and it is against the law laid down in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra & Others and Skoda Auto Volkswagon India Pvt. Ltd. vs. the State of U.P.
- He also submitted that the High Court faulted in stating that some of the allegations were arbitrable under Section 84 of Multistate Cooperative Societies Act, 2002.
- The counsel for the respondents submitted that the Supreme Court would not normally interfere in the interim order passed by the High Court when the matter is pending.
- The Bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian observed that the High Courts can stay proceedings and pass interim protection orders in Section 482 CrPC petitions, by giving reasons in exceptional cases.
- While rejecting the contention of the petitioner, the Court remarked that the High Court had given elaborate reasons and the order cannot be against the principles laid down in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra & Others.
What do you think of this case?