2023 (4) TMI 1330 - SC - Indian Laws

Jurisdiction of High Court in quashing proceedings and discharging the accused - exercise of the limited powers u/s 482 CrPC - Offence punishable under Sections 452, 323, 365, 342, 225, 186, 506, 120-B IPC - HELD THAT - As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers u/s 482 CrPC, the Court is not required to conduct the mini trial. The High Court in the common impugned judgment and order has observed that the charges against the accused are not proved. This is not the stage where the prosecution / investigating agency is/are required to prove the charges. The charges are required to be proved during the trial on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution / investigating agency. Therefore, the High Court has materially erred in going in detail in the allegations and the material collected during the course of the investigation against the accused, at this stage. At the stage of discharge and/or while exercising the powers u/s 482 CrPC, the Court has a very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider whether any sufficient material is available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not . High Court has erred in observing at this stage that the initiation of the criminal proceedings / proceedings is malicious. Whether the criminal proceedings was/were malicious or not, is not required to be considered at this stage. The same is required to be considered at the conclusion of the trial. In any case, at this stage, what is required to be considered is a prima facie case and the material collected during the course of the investigation, which warranted the accused to be tried. Thus, present appeals succeed. The impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court quashing and setting aside the criminal proceedings against the accused Aryan Singh and Gautam Cheema is/are quashed and set aside. The accused to face the trial for which they are chargesheeted. Considering the fact that the allegations in the FIR relates back to the year 2014 and as more than eight years have passed, we direct the learned Trial Court to conclude the trial at the earliest. Present appeals are allowed accordingly.

Summary

Issues involved: Quashing of criminal proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. by High Court, Accused filing discharge applications, Observations made by High Court, Jurisdiction of High Court in quashing proceedings, Setting aside of High Court judgment, Directions for trial timeline.

Judgment Summary:

1. The Supreme Court heard an appeal by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against the High Court's decision to quash criminal proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. The High Court had quashed the proceedings related to FIRs under various sections of the IPC. The CBI contended that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by quashing the proceedings against the accused Aryan Singh and Gautam Cheema, who had filed discharge applications initially.

2. The CBI argued that the High Court erred in conducting a "mini trial" while quashing the proceedings and making observations on the lack of proof of charges and malicious prosecution. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, directing that the accused must face trial as per the chargesheet. The Court emphasized that the High Court's role in quashing proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is limited to determining if sufficient material exists to proceed with the trial.

3. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court's observation of malicious prosecution at this stage was premature, as the investigation was conducted by the CBI as per court directions. The Court highlighted that the determination of malicious intent should be made at the trial's conclusion, not during the quashing stage. The accused were directed to face trial, with all defenses and contentions to be considered by the Trial Court.

4. Considering the delay since the FIR's registration in 2014, the Supreme Court directed the Trial Court to conclude the trial within 12 months from the present order's receipt. The CBI was instructed to submit the order to the concerned Magistrate promptly, and all parties were urged to cooperate for the timely trial conclusion.

5. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's decision and reinstating the criminal proceedings against the accused. The Court emphasized the importance of following due process and conducting a fair trial without premature conclusions on guilt or innocence.