In Brief
A businessman appealed against a High Court order that granted interim protection (stay of arrest) to the other partner in a partnership dispute. The Court ruled that the High Court erred by issuing only an oral direction (not in writing) to restrain arrest. The Court held that any judicial direction must be embodied in a written order accessible to the investigating officer. When granting interim relief in a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR, the High Court must assign specific reasons addressing the nature and gravity of the offence. The order must reflect judicial application of mind. Forgery of valuable documents is serious and warrants careful consideration. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's order, emphasizing that oral directions in criminal proceedings lack accountability and set dangerous precedents.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.