Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Accused Not Entitled To Copies Of 'Unrelied' Upon Documents At The Stage Of Framing Of Charges Under Section 91 CrPC: Supreme Court Elected Representatives Have No Privilege To Resort To Violence; Criminal Antecedents Are Material For Bail Adjudication: Supreme Court Mere Absence Of Transport Documents Does Not Create A Presumption Of Violation Of Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004: Supreme Court Section 396 IPC | Conviction For 'Dacoity With Murder' Requires Proof That Murder Was Committed In The Course Of Dacoity: Allahabad High Court 'Developers Cannot Delay Conveyance For Eternity And Milk Additional FSI Benefits': Bombay High Court Upholds Societies' Deemed Conveyance Pre-Approval Statutory Dues Stand Extinguished Upon Approval Of Resolution Plan; GST Authorities Cannot Initiate Fresh Proceedings: Calcutta High Court Unregistered Agreement To Sell With Delivery Of Possession Is Admissible In A Suit For Specific Performance: Delhi High Court Stigmatic Order Discharging Probationer Without Inquiry Is Void For Violation Of Natural Justice: Gujarat High Court Execution Proceedings | Court Cannot Impose Arbitrary Financial Conditions Without Reason In Stay Applications: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 528 BNSS | High Court Cannot Exercise Inherent Powers To Circumvent Statutory Bar Against Second Revision: Delhi High Court Advocate Empanelment | Restriction On Multiple Applications Is A Procedural Choice Within Employer’s Domain: Delhi High Court Acquittal Appeal | Double Presumption Of Innocence In Favour Of Accused Cannot Be Disturbed Merely Because Another View Is Possible: Gujarat High Court SC/ST Act | Offence Under Section 3(1)(g) Not Attracted If Dispossession Or Interference Is Not Due To Victim's Caste: Himachal Pradesh High Court Judicial Officer Must Maintain Distance From Practicing Advocates To Avoid Impropriety: Gujarat High Court Upholds Dismissal Section 183 BNSS | Investigating Officer Cannot Independently Record Further Statement Of Victim After Recording Before Magistrate: Karnataka High Court Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

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