JUDGMENT : I.A.No.1 of 2023 1. This is petition is filed to dispense with Certified Copies as they are readily available, but their Photostat copies were filed. In view thereof and there is no objection from the other side, the petition is allowed subject to the condition that the petitioner will file Certified Copies within one month from the date of this Order. I.A.No.2 of 2023 2. This petition is filed to stay all further proceedings in Criminal Petition No.1427 of 2023 in Crime No.125 of 2022 on the file of Penumantra Police Station, West Godavari District registered on 03.07.2022 for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 153-A, 341, 506, 435 R/w Section 511 and 109 and 149 IPC. 3. The petitioner filed petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings in Crime No.125 of 2022 registered as aforesaid. 4. It is the contention of the petitioner that he is a public servant and representative and elected as a member of Parliament representing Narasapuram constituency, but the powerful individuals in the State treat him with animosity and resorting to various extra legal methods to restrain him and that the petitioner was previously tortured by the State under the grab of investigation and he has reasonable fear that he may be taken again into custody pending or newly registering the cases. It is further stated by the petitioner that based on the document furnished by the Director of Journal, Mangalagiri in Rc.No.1701/L&O-III/2022, Dt.27-01-2023, he found that Crime No.125 of 2022 was registered against him and after going through contents of the FIR, it appears for him that it is a forged complaint in an attempt to take him into custody of the police to harass him and that until the said document is furnished to him, he did not know about it. He further stated that he intended to attend meeting on 04.07.2022 on the eve of inauguration of the statue of Alluri Sitarama Raju at Bhimavaram, but the people at the helm of affairs developed animosity against him as he is criticizing certain policies. He further stated that on the baseless and improbable allegations, FIR was lodged against him exactly one day before his schedule to visit, solely to take him into custody and that an institution or continuation of the criminal proceedings against him is abuse of process of law. He further stated that on the baseless and improbable allegations, FIR was lodged against him exactly one day before his schedule to visit, solely to take him into custody and that an institution or continuation of the criminal proceedings against him is abuse of process of law. In this back drop of allegations, the petitioner seeks interim relief. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of swearing ceremony of the newly appointed Governor of State of Andhra Pradesh, the petitioner would like to attend the ceremony schedule to be held on 24.02.2023, but he apprehends illegal arrest and harassment in view of the past experience in his mind. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Bhajanlal’s case, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the type of cases instituted as abuse of process of law to wreak vengeance by falsely implicating the accused in crimes, inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised. Learned counsel further submitted that the Supreme Court has not totally fettered the authority of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the case Neeharika Infrastructures, 2021 SCC Online SC 315 to pass any interim order directing the police not to take co-erosive steps etc., it has cautioned that such vague orders to be avoided and any direction be given with clarity and thus, learned counsel would submit to pass appropriate direction more particularly the interim relief as sought which would help the petitioner to attend the ceremony. 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor sought time to file counter in the main petition. However, in view of the urgency expressed by the petitioner in the Interlocutory Application, he made his oral submissions opposing the petition mainly on the ground that this Court cannot pass orders under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in a very casual and routine manner and the type of orders sought by the petitioner particularly a direction to the police not to use co-erosive steps must not be granted and it can be directed only in a rarest of the rate cases as said by the Supreme Court in Niharika Infrastructures Private Limited. He further submitted that the said observations of the Supreme Court have been reiterated by the Supreme Court in its subsequent decision in the case Siddardha Mukesh Bhandari Vs State of Gujarath and another, (2022) 10 SCC 525 . He further submitted that the said observations of the Supreme Court have been reiterated by the Supreme Court in its subsequent decision in the case Siddardha Mukesh Bhandari Vs State of Gujarath and another, (2022) 10 SCC 525 . He further submitted that the petitioner has not made out any rarest of rare case in the present case so as to give such relief. He further submitted that the petitioner has the opportunity of filing the petition at the earliest possible time since even according to the petitioner he came to know about the pendency of the cases as on 27.01.2023 and the present relief is sought today, a day just before the ceremony. He further submitted that even for granting interim relief of the kind mention by the petitioner, the Court has to see whether all other parameters stated by the Supreme Court in the Order in Niharika Infrastructure Private Limited (supra) shall be complied and that the truth or veracity of the contents in the complaint cannot be decided at this juncture and it is the realm of the investigating officer to examine the complaint and file the final report after due investigation. Though all the provisions of law under which the case was registered are covered within the scope of Section 41-A Cr.P.C, he submitted that the issue of notice is not mandatory in all cases, but within the scope of the decision of the Supreme Court in Arnesh’s case (2014) 8 SCC 273 , the guidelines as issued therein shall be followed and there cannot be a direction that notice under Section 41-A should be issued in all cases. He further stated that the respondent is always ready to comply the directions of the Supreme Court as detailed in the Arnesh’s case. That apart, he submitted that when there is clash between the individual interest and the interest of the society, the interest of the society prevails over the individual interest and the freedom of speech guaranteed in the constitution is not absolute, but conditional. He further stated that the petitioner has been making derogative statements and causing disturbance to the law and order situation. He further stated that for constituting the offence under Section 120-B IPC, it is not required that the petitioner should be present here and it is possible for him to do any activity sitting in Delhi as well. He further stated that the petitioner has been making derogative statements and causing disturbance to the law and order situation. He further stated that for constituting the offence under Section 120-B IPC, it is not required that the petitioner should be present here and it is possible for him to do any activity sitting in Delhi as well. Thus, he opposed grant of any interim order in this matter. 7. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations in the complaint exfacie absurd observed and the present case makes out a rarest of the rare case. In this regard, he submitted that except the name of the petitioner as accused, not even a single name could be mentioned by the complainant and thus, in the FIR it is mentioned the accused as the petitioner and approximately 60 others and that the petitioner stays in Delhi and cannot commit any offence alleged against him. He further stated that the petitioner being a responsible public servant never intended to cause any disturbance and the reading of the complaint itself shows that it is all backed by the persons who had enmity with him. In this respect, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the contents of the complaint clearly indicate that at the instance of the petitioner only the persons carrying delay weapons having formed into an unlawful assembly created terror etc., and therefore, it is not the stage to examine the correctness of these allegations. 8. Before proceeding further, it is appropriate to mention the contents of the decision of the Supreme Court in the Case of Bhajanlal (Supra) “102. 8. Before proceeding further, it is appropriate to mention the contents of the decision of the Supreme Court in the Case of Bhajanlal (Supra) “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused; (2) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code; (3) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused; (4) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code; (5) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; (6) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party; (7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 9. In the case of Niharika Infrastructure Private Limited (supra), at para 80, held as follows: “80. In the case of Niharika Infrastructure Private Limited (supra), at para 80, held as follows: “80. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, our final conclusions on the principal/core issue, whether the High Court would be justified in passing an interim order of stay of investigation and/or “no coercive steps to be adopted”, during the pendency of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in what circumstances and whether the High Court would be justified in passing the order of not to arrest the accused or “no coercive steps to be adopted” during the investigation or till the final report/charge sheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, our final conclusions are as under: i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence; ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences; iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on; iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the „rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty). v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule; viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere; ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping; x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences; xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice; xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure; xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court; xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint; xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR; xvi) The aforesaid parameters would be applicable and/or the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered by the High Court while passing an interim order in a quashing petition in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, an interim order of stay of investigation during the pendency of the quashing petition can be passed with circumspection. Such an interim order should not require to be passed routinely, casually and/or mechanically. Normally, when the investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy and the entire evidence/material is not before the High Court, the High Court should restrain itself from passing the interim order of not to arrest or “no coercive steps to be adopted” and the accused should be relegated to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the competent court. The High Court shall not and as such is not justified in passing the order of not to arrest and/or “no coercive steps” either during the investigation or till the investigation is completed and/or till the final report/charge sheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. xvii) Even in a case where the High Court is prima facie of the opinion that an exceptional case is made out for grant of interim stay of further investigation, after considering the broad parameters while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India referred to hereinabove, the High Court has to give brief reasons why such an interim order is warranted and/or is required to be passed so that it can demonstrate the application of mind by the Court and the higher forum can consider what was weighed with the High Court while passing such an interim order. xviii) Whenever an interim order is passed by the High Court of “no coercive steps to be adopted” within the aforesaid parameters, the High Court must clarify what does it mean by “no coercive steps to be adopted” as the term “no coercive steps to be adopted” can be said to be too vague and/or broad which can be misunderstood and/or misapplied. 10. In Sidhardha Mukesh Bhandra para No.10, it is held, “10. What is emphasised by this Court in Neeharika Infrastructure is that grant of any stay of investigation and/or any interim relief while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be only in the rarest of rare cases”. 11. On a cumulative reading of the above decisions, this Court is of the view that while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the interim orders like those referred in decision should be sparingly passed and it cannot be in a routine and causal manner. It is also pertinent to mention that when the investigation is in progress, the High Court must refrain from passing interim order not to arrest’, no co-erosive steps to be adopted’ and the accused should be relegated to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the competent Court. The Supreme Court further stated that whenever High Court passes an interim Order not to use co-erosive steps etc., there must be clarity as what to it means by such order. This kind of interim order, can be passed only in rarest of the rare cases. Here the petitioner had the knowledge of pendency of cases against him since at least 27.01.2023. This kind of interim order, can be passed only in rarest of the rare cases. Here the petitioner had the knowledge of pendency of cases against him since at least 27.01.2023. Except seeking relief now by filing these proceedings, no steps were taken to seek appropriate relief under any other provision of law or more particularly under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and no explanation is given for not resorting to take such steps, if at all illegal arrest is apprehended, having such opportunity earlier at the earliest point of time. At this juncture, it is also relevant to mention that while arguing the case it is represented that the petitioner was invited by the Governor to attend the meeting tomorrow, but it is also mentioned that no such invitation from other source is received so far. Irrespective of invitation, if the petitioner intends to attend the ceremony, mere not filing documentary proof of invitation is not a hurdle in seeking the relief. If at all, the petitioner intends to attend the ceremony, now in view of threat of arrest, it may be difficult for him to attend. Since the respondent also expressed during the course of arguments that they would follow the directions of the Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh (supra), strict adherence to the decision of the Supreme Court would enable the petitioner in safely attending the ceremony. As such, the respondent is directed to strictly follow the said decision in its letter and spirit without any deviation, if the arrest of the petitioner is felt necessary in respect of the case in crime No.125 of 2022 of Penumantra Police Station. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of. Crl.P.No.1427 of 2023 12. Post after four (4) weeks for filing counter.