New Delhi: In a significant procedural clarification aimed at curbing judicial overreach into police investigations, the Supreme Court has held that High Courts cannot issue directions to the police to comply with Section 41A of the CrPC (now Section 35 of the BNSS) while declining to quash an FIR.

The Bench, comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, observed that such directions amount to granting "interim relief" in a petition that has effectively been dismissed on merits. The ruling came in the case of Practical Solutions Inc. (Thr. Authorized Representative) v. The State of Telangana & Ors.

It has become a common practice in many High Courts to dispose of petitions filed under Section 482 CrPC (seeking quashing of FIRs) by refusing to quash the case but adding a "protective" rider: directing the police to strictly follow the procedure under Section 41A. This section mandates that for offenses punishable with less than 7 years of imprisonment, the police should issue a notice of appearance instead of arresting the accused, provided they cooperate.

While this effectively shields the accused from immediate arrest, the Supreme Court has now flagged this approach as legally contradictory.

The Apex Court reasoned that if a High Court finds no merit in quashing the FIR—meaning a cognizable offense is made out—it should not interfere with the statutory powers of the investigating agency.

The Bench observed:

"In a petition where quashing of the FIR is prayed for, the High Court should not have passed an order directing the Investigating Officer to comply with Section 41-A... because it indirectly amounts to granting a relief which High Court could have considered only if a prima facie case for quashing of the FIR is made out."

The Court explained that the protection under Section 41A (bar on arrest) is substantive. Granting it as a "consolation prize" after rejecting the main prayer for quashing creates an anomaly where the accused gets protection without establishing a case for it.

This judgment restores the clear boundary between the judiciary and the executive (police).

For the Police: It reaffirms their discretion to decide on arrests based on the necessity of the investigation, without being micromanaged by "standard" court orders.
For the Accused: It closes a convenient backdoor. If an FIR is not quashed, the accused must now seek proper remedies like Anticipatory Bail (Section 438 CrPC/482 BNSS) rather than relying on a 482 petition to get "no coercive steps" orders.

The ruling emphasizes that statutory duties (like 41A) exist independently; courts do not need to reiterate them in every order, especially when dismissing a case.