Syllabus: Structure, organization and functioning of the Judiciary
Context and Recent Judicial Developments
- Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Mohd Arshad Khan (December 2025) limited time-bound investigation directions.
- The Court stated such intervention should remain an exception, not a routine practice.
- Protection from arrest without quashing the FIR was found legally unjustified.
- Delhi High Court in Satya Prakash Bagla (November 2025) narrowed meaning of “coercive measures”.
Statutory Role of Police and Courts
- Police possess a statutory duty under the CrPC to investigate cognisable offences.
- Courts must avoid thwarting lawful investigations at preliminary stages.
- Judicial intervention is allowed only when no offence is disclosed in the FIR.
- The power of quashing must be used sparingly and with circumspection.
Guidance from Neeharika Infrastructure Judgment (2021)
- Supreme Court clarified limits on High Court’s interim and quashing powers.
- Courts should not usurp police jurisdiction, respecting institutional separation.
- Intervention is justified only to prevent a miscarriage of justice.
- Staying investigation or arrest requires clear reasons and judicial application of mind.
Use and Interpretation of “Coercive Measures”
- Supreme Court criticised vague orders directing “no coercive steps” without explanation.
- High Courts must define scope and intent when using such phrases.
- If investigation is stayed, courts must explicitly state and justify the decision.
- Reasons, however brief, should show active judicial consideration of facts and law.
Delhi High Court’s Context-Based Interpretation
- The phrase “coercive measures” derives meaning from the relief sought and procedural stage.
- Courts should avoid giving the term a fixed or inflexible legal definition.
- A “no coercive steps” order does not automatically imply suspension of investigation.
- The focus remains on personal liberty, not restriction of lawful police functions.
Conclusion
- Judicial restraint preserves the balance between individual rights and investigative authority.
- Clear, reasoned orders ensure transparency, accountability, and constitutional propriety.