Kerala High Court Denies Relief To Petitioner Suppressing Facts, Orders Enquiry Into Allotment Of Govt Scheme Houses On Puramboke Land Candidate Missing Physical Test For Minor Illness Has No Enforceable Right To Rescheduling: Supreme Court Prolonged Incarceration And Parity Constitute Valid Grounds For Regular Bail: Supreme Court Accused In Cheque Bounce Cases Cannot File Evidence-In-Chief By Affidavit Under Section 145 NI Act: Orissa High Court Borrowers Have No Right To Personal Hearing Before Fraud Classification, But Full Forensic Audit Report Must Be Supplied: Supreme Court Pendency Of Matrimonial Dispute With General Allegations Not A Valid Ground To Deny Public Employment: Allahabad High Court Minimum Five Persons Mandatory To Prove 'Preparation For Dacoity' Under Section 399 IPC: Gujarat High Court Suit For Specific Performance Not Maintainable Without Prayer To Set Aside Termination Of Agreement: Madras High Court Voluntary Retirement Deemed Accepted If Positive Order Of Refusal Is Not Communicated Within Notice Period: Supreme Court Court Cannot Convict One Accused And Acquit Another On Same Evidence: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict Due To Unreliable Last-Seen Evidence And Principle Of Parity 138 NI Act | Accused Cannot Rebut Presumption Of Legally Enforceable Debt At Pre-Trial Stage In Cheque Bounce Cases: Supreme Court More Meritorious PWD Candidates From Reserved Categories Can Claim Unreserved PWD Posts In Open Competition: Supreme Court Meritorious Reserved Candidates Can Claim Unreserved Horizontal Vacancies Based On Merit: Supreme Court Employee Not Entitled To Gratuity Until Conclusion Of Both Departmental And Criminal Proceedings: Supreme Court Stamp Duty Recovery Against Legal Heirs Is Strictly Limited To The Extent Of Inherited Estate: Allahabad High Court Single Lathi Blow On Head During Sudden Altercation Amounts To Culpable Homicide Under Section 304 Part II IPC, Not Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court

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