Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2023) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 17746
Decided on: 03.03.2023
For Petitioner(s):
Mr. R. Basant, Sr. Adv. Mr. A Velan, AOR Mrs. Navpreet Kaur, Adv. Mr. Aditya Raj Singh, Adv. Mr. Mritunjay Pathak, Adv.
For Respondent(s):
Mr. L.R. Venkatsan, Adv. Mr. P.V. Yogeswaran, Adv. Mr. Akshat Srivastava, AOR
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 227, 228 -- Quashing of criminal proceedings after framing of charges -- Inherent power of High court -- Without considering the application on merits to quash the criminal proceedings, the High Court dismissed the application as the discharge application is pending before Trial Court – In Anand Kumar Mohatta’s case (2019) 11 SCC 706 the Supreme Court observed and held that High court can exercise jurisdiction u/s 482 of Cr.P.C even when the discharge application is pending with the trial court -- Indeed, it would be a travesty to hold that proceedings initiated against a person can be interfered with at the stage of FIR but not if it has advanced, and the allegations have materialized into a charge sheet -- On the contrary it could be said that the abuse of process caused by FIR stands aggravated if the FIR has taken the form of a charge sheet after investigation -- Case remanded back to the High Court to consider the quashing petition/petition u/s 482 CrPC afresh in accordance with law and on its own merits at the earliest.
(Para 2-4)
Cases referred:
1. Anand Kumar Mohatta & Anr. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) Department of Home & Anr., (2019) 11 SCC 706.
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 14-08-2019 passed by the High Court of Madras, Madurai Bench in CRL.O.P. (MD) No. 1090/2017, by which without considering the said application on merits, which was filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) to quash the criminal proceedings, the High Court has dismissed the said application on the ground that the discharge application is pending before the learned Trial Court, the original accused/appellants have preferred the present appeal.
3. The issue involved in the present appeal whether pending the discharge application before the Trial Court, the High Court can exercise powers under Section 482 CrPC and consider the application for quashing on merits is now not res integra in view of the direct decision of this Court in the case of Anand Kumar Mohatta & Anr. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) Department of Home & Anr. (2019) 11 SCC 706. In paragraphs 14 to 16, it is observed and held as under –
“14. First, we would like to deal with the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent 2 that once the charge sheet is filed, petition for quashing of FIR is untenable. We do not see any merit in this submission, keeping in mind the position of this Court in Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat2. In Joseph Salvaraj A. (supra), this Court while deciding the question whether the High Court could entertain the 482 petition for quashing of FIR, when the charge sheet was filed by the police during the pendency of the 482 petition, observed:-
“16. Thus, from the general conspectus of the various sections under which the appellant is being charged and is to be prosecuted would show that the same are not made out even prima facie from the complainant’s FIR. Even if the charge-sheet had been filed, the learned Single Judge could have still examined whether the offences alleged to have been committed by the appellant were prima facie made out from the complainant’s FIR, charge- sheet, documents, etc. or not.”
15. Even otherwise it must be remembered that the provision invoked by the accused before the High Court is Section 482 Cr. P.C and that this Court is hearing an appeal from an order under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Section 482 of Cr.P.C reads as follows: -
“482. Saving of inherent power of the High Court.- Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”
16. There is nothing in the words of this Section which restricts the exercise of the power of the Court to prevent the abuse of process of court or miscarriage of justice only to the stage of the FIR. It is settled principle of law that the High court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C even when the discharge application is pending with the trial court. Indeed, it would be a travesty to hold that proceedings initiated against a person can be interfered with at the stage of FIR but not if it has advanced, and the allegations have materialized into a charge sheet. On the contrary it could be said that the abuse of process caused by FIR stands aggravated if the FIR has taken the form of a charge sheet after investigation. The power is undoubtedly conferred to prevent abuse of process of power of any court.”
4. In view of the above and applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decision to the facts of the case in hand, the impugned order passed by the High Court is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. As the High Court has not considered the application on merits, we remand the matter to the High Court to consider the quashing petition/petition under Section 482 CrPC afresh in accordance with law and on its own merits at the earliest.
5. With this, the present Appeal is accordingly allowed.
Appeal allowed.
********