The instant appeal arose from the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat. The facts of the case are as follows: the appellant and the first respondent entered into a deed of partnership under which a firm by the name of Calla Associates was constituted.   a document was prepared and notarised  pertaining to record the relinquishment of rights by the appellant from a parcel of land belonging to the firm. The allegation of the appellant is that under the terms of the original document, the appellant agreed to relinquish rights only in certain land. However, it is alleged that the first respondent forged the internal pages of the document and added additional survey numbers of land, over and above what was agreed to be relinquished. an advocate’s notice was issued by the appellant to the first respondent alleging misappropriation of the amount invested by the appellant. In a reply, the respondent suggested that partnership had been mutually dissolved and documents had been executed to that effect. The appellant addressed a communication to the bankers to cease all transactions in the account of the partnership firm due to disputes between the parties.  The first respondent got an FIR registered alleging an act of forgery on the part of the appellant. The investigating officer filed a ‘B’ summary report recording that the alleged document had not been forged by the appellant but by the first respondent. The FIR which forms the basis of the present proceedings was registered, alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 405, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the Penal Code. The first respondent instituted proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (“CrPC”) for quashing the FIR. When the proceedings were taken up by the single judge of the High court,  an oral direction had been issued by the Court restraining the arrest of the first respondent and hence, the appeal before the Supreme Court. 

The court was of the view that the procedure followed by the High Court of issuing an oral direction restraining the arrest of the first respondent was irregular. Oral observations in court are in the course of a judicial discourse. The text of a written order is what is binding and enforceable. The bench opined that the procedure which was followed by the Single Judge must therefore be eschewed in the future. Judges speak through their judgments and orders. 

“While an order granting a stay of arrest in a proceeding under Section 482 of the CrPC lies within the jurisdiction of the High Court, the grant of such relief must be after a judicious application of mind, which must emerge from the reasons which are recorded by the Judge. The formulation of reasons in a judicial order provides the backbone of public confidence in the sanctity of the judicial process. the reasons recorded by the Court must reflect an application of mind to relevant facts and circumstances, including: (i) The nature and gravity of the allegations; (ii) The seriousness of the alleged offence(s); (iii) The position of the accused and the likelihood of their availability for investigation; and (iv) The basis on which a stay of arrest has been granted till the next date”.

The court accordingly allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the High Court. 

For complete judgment :-Salimbhai Hamidbhai Memon Vs Niteshkumar Maganbhai Patel & Anr. Criminal Appeal No. 884 of 2021