Direction to File a Separate Challan Is Ultra Vires: Trial Court Cannot Interfere with Investigative Discretion: Supreme Court

“Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Charge-Sheet—That Power Lies with Investigating Agencies Alone” — In a powerful reaffirmation of the separation of powers between the investigating agency and the judiciary, the Supreme Court of India held that a trial court has no authority to direct the police to file a separate charge-sheet against any particular accused, particularly in the absence of a legal necessity. The ruling came in the appeals filed by Mamman Khan, a sitting MLA from Haryana, who challenged the segregation of his trial and the directive for a separate charge-sheet in the 2023 Nuh communal violence cases.

Terming the orders passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nuh, as beyond jurisdiction and contrary to the Criminal Procedure Code, the bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan set aside both the segregation of trial and the directive to file a separate challan, reaffirming that “the power to determine how, when, and against whom a charge-sheet is filed rests solely with the investigating officer, and not the court.”

“Trial Courts Cannot Usurp Investigative Functions”: SC Reiterates Fundamental Separation Between Judiciary and Executive in Criminal Law

The genesis of the issue lay in the suo motu orders passed by the trial court on 28 August 2024 and 2 September 2024, wherein the court directed the Station House Officer (SHO) of Police Station Nagina to file a separate charge-sheet against the appellant, solely on the basis that he was a sitting legislator. The directive was purportedly issued to ensure “day-to-day trial” in accordance with the Supreme Court’s earlier directions in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, which called for expeditious trials of MPs and MLAs.

However, the Supreme Court in this case made it unequivocally clear that such judicial directions to investigating agencies to file charge-sheets are impermissible and amount to a serious procedural violation. The Court stated:

“The discretion to file a charge-sheet lies solely with the investigating agency. The trial court had no authority to mandate a separate challan.”

The bench also cautioned against judicial overreach, stating that such directions “disturb the balance of powers” under the criminal justice system:

“The role of the court is to examine the material placed before it by the investigating agency—not to instruct the agency on how to structure its investigation or whom to charge separately.”

“Even Multiple Charge-Sheets Must Be Tried Together If They Arise From the Same Transaction”: Court Emphasises Unity of Trial in Single Incident Offences

The Court held that even where multiple charge-sheets are filed, if the alleged offences arise from the same criminal transaction, the cases must be tried jointly, as per Sections 219–223 Cr.P.C.. In the present case, both FIR Nos. 149 and 150 involved the same incident of communal violence on 31 July 2023 in Nuh, and the evidence was interlinked, involving common witnesses, shared digital evidence, and a conspiracy theory spanning all accused.

The Court observed: “Even when separate charge-sheets are filed, if the offences arise out of the same transaction, they must necessarily be tried together. Judicial economy, consistency in adjudication, and fairness to the accused demand it.”

The bench rejected the trial court’s reasoning that the status of the appellant as an MLA required a distinct procedural path: “The political status of an accused cannot authorise the court to instruct the police on investigative procedures. Expediency cannot override legality.”

“Segregation of Trial Was Built on an Illegality—Directive to File Separate Challan Was Void Ab Initio”

By examining the foundational legality of the trial court’s directive to file a separate charge-sheet, the Supreme Court concluded that all subsequent proceedings, including the bifurcation of trial, were vitiated. Since the charge-sheet itself was filed not on investigative discretion, but under judicial command, it lacked the autonomous legal basis required under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C.

The Court held: “An order for segregation which is rooted in an illegal directive to file a charge-sheet cannot be sustained. The procedural illegality contaminates the entire subsequent process.”

This led the Court to direct that the trial court must proceed with a joint trial of the appellant and co-accused, treating the case as a unified criminal prosecution arising from the same set of acts.

Judicial Expediency Cannot Override Legal Boundaries

Ultimately, the Supreme Court not only vindicated the appellant’s claim to a joint trial, but also issued a strong judicial reminder about the limits of a trial court’s role in criminal investigations. The ruling reinforces the principle that judicial urgency must not mutate into procedural excess:

“Expeditious trials are necessary, but not at the cost of fundamental fairness and statutory compliance. The trial court exceeded its authority by directing the filing of a separate charge-sheet—such a directive is ultra vires and constitutionally indefensible.”

With this judgment, the Supreme Court has sent a clear message that respect for procedural integrity is a non-negotiable component of the criminal justice system, and that judges must not step into the shoes of investigators, even in high-profile cases involving public figures.

Date of Decision: 12 September 2025