Patta Without SDM’s Prior Approval Is Void Ab Initio And Cannot Be Cancelled – It Never Legally Existed: Allahabad High Court Natural Guardian Means Legal Guardian: Custody Cannot Be Denied to Father Without Strong Reason: Orissa High Court Slams Family Court for Technical Rejection Affidavit Is Not a Caste Certificate: Madhya Pradesh High Court Sets Aside Zila Panchayat Member's Election for Failing Eligibility Under OBC Quota Confession Recorded By DCP Is Legally Valid Under KCOCA – Bengaluru DCP Holds Rank Equivalent To SP: Karnataka High Court Difference of Opinion Cannot End in Death: Jharkhand High Court Commutes Death Sentence in Maoist Ambush Killing SP Pakur and Five Policemen Mere Presence Of Beneficiary During Execution Does Not Cast Suspicion On Will: Delhi High Court Litigants Have No Right to Choose the Bench: Bombay High Court Rules Rule 3A Is Mandatory, Sends Writ to Kolhapur Testimony Must Be of Sterling Quality: Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Grandfather in Rape Case, Citing Unnatural Conduct and Infirm Evidence Cheating and Forgery Taint Even Legal Funds: No Safe Haven in Law for Laundered Money: Bombay High Court Final Maintenance Is Not Bound by Interim Orders – Section 125 Determination Must Be Based on Real Evidence: Delhi High Court Contempt | Power to Punish Carries Within It the Power to Forgive: Supreme Court Sets Aside Jail Term for Director Who Criticised Judges Over Stray Dog Orders Seizure and Attachment Are Not Twins: Supreme Court Holds Police Can Freeze Bank Accounts in PC Act Cases Using CrPC Section 102 IBC | Pre-Existing Dispute Must Be Real, Not Moonshine: Supreme Court Restores Insolvency Proceedings, Says Admission Cannot Be Rejected Based on Spurious Defence Summons Under FEMA Are Civil in Nature – Section 160 CrPC Has No Role to Play: Delhi High Court Denies Exemption to Woman Petitioner from Personal Appearance Before ED Clear Admission in Ledger Is Sufficient for Summary Judgment: Delhi High Court Decrees ₹16.77 Cr in Favour of MSME Supplier Mere Allegation Under SC/ST Act Doesn’t Bar Bail When No Public Abuse Is Made Out: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail in Caste Atrocity Case Consent Of Girl Aged Above 16 Is Legally Valid Under Pre-2013 Law: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Rape Conviction Insurer Entitled to Recover Compensation from Owner When Driver Has No Licence or Fake Licence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Applies ‘Pay and Recover’ Doctrine Courts Cannot Rewrite Contracts Where Parties Have Failed to Clearly Define Property Terms: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Appeal in Specific Performance Suit Even Illegal Appointments Cannot Be Cancelled Without Hearing: Patna High Court Quashes Mass Termination Of Absorbed University Staff Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Limited Permissive Use Confers No Right to Expand Trademark Beyond Agreed Territories: Bombay High Court Enforces Consent Decree in ‘New Indian Express’ Trademark Dispute Assam Rifles Not Entitled to Parity with Indian Army Merely Due to Similar Duties: Delhi High Court Dismisses Equal Pay Petition Conspiracy Cannot Be Presumed from Illicit Relationship: Bombay High Court Acquits Wife, Affirms Conviction of Paramour in Murder Case Bail in NDPS Commercial Quantity Cases Cannot Be Granted Without Satisfying Twin Conditions of Section 37: Delhi High Court Cancels Bail Orders Terming Them ‘Perversely Illegal’

High Court found to have exceeded jurisdiction in discharging accused, says Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


On dated 10 April 2023, Supreme Court of India has delivered its judgement in the criminal appeal case brought forth by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against a common judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The CBI had appealed against the High Court's decision to quash criminal proceedings against two accused, Aryan Singh and Gautam Cheema, under several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) including 452, 323, 365, 342, 186, 225, 506, and 120-B.

The CBI had argued that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by quashing the entire criminal proceedings and making observations that the allegations and charges against the accused were not proven and the prosecution was malicious. The CBI claimed that these observations were made at an inappropriate stage of the proceedings and that the charges were to be proven during the trial and on the basis of evidence. The CBI also argued that the initiation of criminal proceedings could not be considered malicious as the investigation was handed over to the CBI based on directions from the High Court.

The Supreme Court observed that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing the entire criminal proceedings and discharging the accused. The High Court was found to have dealt with the proceedings as if it was conducting a mini trial, which is not the requirement at the stage of discharge and/or while exercising powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). The High Court made the observation that the charges against the accused were not proved, which is not appropriate at this stage as the charges are to be proven during the trial on the basis of evidence led by the prosecution/investigating agency. The Supreme Court also noted that the High Court's observation that the initiation of the criminal proceedings was malicious was erroneous as the investigation was handed over to the CBI based on directions from the High Court and the accused persons were charge sheeted after conclusion of the investigation. The question of whether the criminal proceedings were malicious or not is to be considered at the conclusion of the trial and not at the stage of discharge and/or while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court noted that at this stage, the court has a limited jurisdiction to consider if there is sufficient material available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing the entire criminal proceedings against the accused and applying the law laid down by the Supreme Court in similar cases. The impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court was found to be unsustainable and was quashed and set aside by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and directed the accused to face the trial for which they were charge sheeted. The contentions and defenses available to the parties were kept open to be considered by the trial court during the trial. The trial court was directed to conclude the trial within 12 months from the date of receipt of the Supreme Court's order and all parties were directed to cooperate in concluding the trial within the prescribed time. Appeal Allowed.

Central Bureau of Investigation   Vs Aryan Singh Etc.       

Latest Legal News