Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.397 – Criminal revision – Judicial Magistrate declined to discharge appellant in a case u/ss.504 and 506 IPC – Criminal revision against the order turned down by High Court on ground of lack of jurisdiction u/s.397 CrPC while citing a Supreme Court decision in Asian Resurfacing case – On appeal, held: The High Court apparently under-appreciated the decision in Asian Resurfacing case – One may say so at least for two reasons – Firstly, the said case dealt with a challenge to charges framed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (POCA) which not only is a special legislation, but also contains a specific bar u/s.19 thereof against routine exercise of revisional jurisdiction – Secondly, Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing case while expressing concern regarding the need to tackle rampant pendency and delays in criminal law system, followed the ratio laid down in an earlier decision in Madhu Limaye wherein it is laid down that orders framing charges or refusing discharge are neither interlocutory nor final in nature and are therefore not affected by the bar of s.397(2) CrPC – That apart, the High Court is imbued with inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process or to secure ends of justice having regard to the facts and circumstances of individual cases – In the present case, the High Court committed jurisdictional error by not entertaining the revision petition on merits and overlooking the fact that ‘discharge’ is a valuable right provided to the accused – In line with the fact that the High Court and the court below did not examine the fairness of criminal investigation in this case and other related aspects concerning improvement of witness statements, the High Court is directed to decide the revision petition afresh – IPC – ss.504 and 506 – Revision.
Jurisdiction – Inherent Jurisdiction – Inherent Jurisdiction of the High Court – Ambit of – Held: High Court is imbued with inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process or to secure ends of justice having regard to the facts and circumstance of individual cases – However, the High Court, while exercising its afore-stated jurisdiction ought to be circumspect – Discretion vested in the High Court is to be invoked carefully and judiciously for effective and timely administration of criminal justice system – Nonetheless, a complete hands off approach is not recommended – Albeit, there should be interference, may be, in exceptional cases, failing which there is likelihood of serious prejudice to the rights of a citizen – Abuse of Court – Prevention of – Administration of criminal justice. Remanding the matter to High Court, the Court
HELD:1.1. While limiting the scope of a criminal revision to jurisdictional errors alone, the High Court apparently underappreciated the Judgment in Asian Resurfacing case. One may say so at least for two reasons. First, the material facts in the said case dealt with a challenge to the charges framed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (POCA). The judgment itself enlightens that not only is POCA a special legislation, but also contains a specific bar under Section 19 against routine exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Second, this Court in Asian Resurfacing while expressing concern regarding the need to tackle rampant pendency and delays in our criminal law system, followed the ratio laid down in an earlier decision in Madhu Limaye. [Para 13][149-G-H; 150-A-B]
1.2. The correct position of law as laid down in Madhu Limaye, is that orders framing charges or refusing discharge are neither interlocutory nor final in nature and are therefore not affected by the bar of Section 397 (2) of CrPC. That apart, the High Court is imbued with inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process or to secure ends of justice having regard to the facts and circumstance of individual cases. As a caveat it may be stated that the High Court, while exercising its afore-stated jurisdiction ought to be circumspect. The discretion vested in the High Court is to be invoked carefully and judiciously for effective and timely administration of criminal justice system. This Court, nonetheless, does not recommend a complete hands off approach. Albeit, there should be interference, may be, in exceptional cases, failing which there is likelihood of serious prejudice to the rights of a citizen. For example, when the contents of a complaint or the other purported material on record is a brazen attempt to persecute an innocent person, it becomes imperative upon the Court to prevent the abuse of process of law. [Para 15][151-B-E]
2. Further, it is well settled that the Trial court while considering the discharge application is not to act as a mere post office. The Court has to sift through the evidence in order to find out whether there are sufficient grounds to try the suspect. The court has to consider the broad probabilities, total effect of evidence and documents produced and the basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. Likewise, the Court has sufficient discretion to order further investigation in appropriate cases, if need be. [Para 16][151-E-F]
3. In the present case, the High Court committed jurisdictional error by not entertaining the revision petition on merits and overlooking the fact that ‘discharge’ is a valuable right provided to the accused. In line with the fact that the High Court and the court below have not examined the fairness of criminal investigation in this case and other related aspects concerning improvement of witness statements, it is necessary for the High Court to reconsider the entire matter and decide the revision petition afresh. [Para 18][151-G-H; 152-A-B]
Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra (1977) 4 SCC 551:[1978] 1 SCR 749 and Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal (1979) 3 SCC 4: [1979] 2 SCR 229 – relied on.
Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2018) 16 SCC 299: [2018] 2 SCR 1045 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.