Saving of inherent powers of 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.
-Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
In Abhishek Mishra v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 2227/2025, Supreme Court's division bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and A.G. Masih observed that even after a charge sheet is filed, the High Courts must assess whether a prima facie case exists against the accused. The case was filed in the Supreme Court on January 27, 2025. It was registered on February 12, 2025.
The order reads:"The High Court has non-suited the petitioner only on the ground that the charge-sheet was filed and as such the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing does not merit consideration. This Court, time and again, has held that merely filing of charge-sheet is not a ground for refusal to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Even after filing of the charge-sheet, the High Court is expected to take into consideration whether a prima facie case is made out or not." It refers to Allahabad High Court.
Besides the State of UP, the other respondents were SP, SHO and Shiv Chand. Supreme Court's website wrongly mentions names of two judges of the High Court as judge of the Gonda District Court, UP.
The case before the Supreme Court arose out of final judgment and order dated December 4, 2024 passed by Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Om Prakash Shukla of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench.
The High Court's order reads:"Learned counsel for the petitioner is not present. Learned A.G.A., who is present for the State, on instructions, states that in this case, charge sheet has been filed in Court. In view thereof, no further orders are required to be passed in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the present writ petition is consigned to record. This of course is without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to challenge the charge sheet or to take appropriate available remedy as per law. Interim order, if any, stands discharged." Notably, counsels for petitioner-A.Z. Siddiqui and Sunny Singh were not present.
Disapproving High Court's unreasoned order, Supreme Court concluded: "We are of the considered view, that the High Court has totally failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it. By way of an ad interim order, there shall be stay of further proceedings before the Trial Court qua the petitioner in connection with Case Crime No.0027/2023 registered at P.S. Kotwali City, District Gonda, until further orders." Significantly, unreasoned orders are void.
No comments:
Post a Comment