In the recent case named Grasim Industries Ltd. vs Competition Commission Of India (2013)[1], the Delhi High Court had held as follows:

"The High Court should be extremely cautious and slow to interfere with the investigation and/or prosecution except when it is convinced beyond any manner of doubt that FIR does not disclose commission of any offence or that the allegations contained in FIR do not constitute any cognizable offence or that the prosecution is barred by law or the High Court is convinced that it is necessary to interfere to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. In dealing with such cases, the High Court has to bear in mind that the judicial intervention at the threshold of the legal process initiated against a person accused of committing offence is highly detrimental to the larger public and societal interest.”

 The people and the society have a legitimate expectation that those committing offences either against an individual or the society are expeditiously brought to trial and, if found guilty, adequately punished. Therefore, while deciding a petition filed for quashing FIR or complaint or restraining the competent authority from investigating the allegations contained in FIR or complaint or for stalling the trial of the case, the High Court should be extremely careful and circumspect.

Referring to the case of M.C. Abraham and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra[2], The Punjab-Haryana High Court in the case of Mandeep Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors.[3], laid down that A person whose petition for grant of anticipatory bail has been rejected may or may not be arrested by the investigating officer depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of the offence, the background of the accused, the facts disclosed in the course of investigation and other relevant considerations. With reference to the same M.C. Abraham case, the 203^rd Law Commission Report on Anticipatory Bail also depicted clearly that the mere fact that an anticipatory bail application is rejected is no ground for directing the applicant’s immediate arrest.

In State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors[4]., it was held as follows:

“A noticeable feature of the scheme under Chapter XIV of the Code is that a Magistrate is kept in the picture at all stages of the police investigation but he is not authorized to interfere with the actual investigation or to direct the police how that investigation is to be conducted. But if a police officer transgresses the circumscribed limits. And improperly and illegally exercises his investigatory powers in breach of any statutory provision causing serious prejudice to the personal liberty and also property of a citizen, then the court on being approached by the person aggrieved for the redress of any grievance; has to consider the nature and extent of the breach and pass appropriate orders as' may be called for without leaving the citizens to the mercy of police echelons since human dignity is a dear value of our Constitution.”