CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION versus ARYAN SINGH ETC.

Citation: [2023] 2 S.C.R. 819 · Decided: 10-04-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
819
[2023] 2 S.C.R. 819
819
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
v.
ARYAN SINGH ETC.
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1025-1026 / 2023)
APRIL 10, 2023
[M. R. SHAH AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 482 – Saving of
inherent powers of the High Court – Accused chargesheeted, on
conclusion of the investigations by the CBI – Discharge applications
by the two accused – Dismissed by the trial court, and thereafter,
the High Court quashed the entire criminal proceedings in exercise
of the powers u/s. 482 – On appeal, held: High Court exceeded in
its jurisdiction in quashing the entire criminal proceedings in exercise
of the limited powers u/s. 482 – At the stage of discharge and/or
quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers
u/s. 482, the Court is not required to conduct the mini trial, it has
very limited jurisdiction – High Court in the judgment and order
held that the charges against the accused are not proved – This is
not the stage where prosecution/investigating agency are required
to prove the charges – Charges are required to be proved during
the trial on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution/
investigating agency – Also, while exercising power u/s. 482 the
High Court not required to consider whether the proceedings are
malicious or not – Thus, the judgment and order passed by the
High Court quashing the criminal proceedings against the accused
is unsustainable and is quashed and set aside.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
Nos. 1025-1026 of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 04.05.2022 of the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CRM-M Nos. 54107 of 2021
and 8233 of 2022.
K M Nataraj, A.S.G., Vatsal Joshi, Sharath Nambiar, Ms. Sakshi
Kakkar, Annirudh Sharma Ii, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advs. for the
Appellant.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
820
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
Mahesh Jethmalani, R.P. Bhatt, Sr. Advs., Ajay Awasthi, Mugdha
Pande, Wedo Khalo, Aditya Soni, Rajat Gautam, Harshit Sethi, Tushan
Rawal, Saud Khan, Nikilesh Ramachandran, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common
judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh in Criminal Misc. Application Nos. 54107 of 2021 and 8233
of 2022 by which the High Court, in exercise of the powers under Section
482 Cr.P.C., has quashed the criminal proceedings of the FIR No.
RC0512020S0001 dated 29.04.2020 registered at Police Station State
Grime Branch, Chandigarh under Sections 452, 323, 365, 342, 186, 225,
506 and 120-B IPC (earlier registered as FIR No.195 dated 30.08.2014
under Sections 452, 323, 365, 342, 225, 186, 506, 120-B IPC at Police
Station Phase-1, Mohali) as well as all the subsequent proceedings arising
out of the same, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has preferred
the present appeals.
2. Shri K.M. Nataraj, learned ASG appearing on behalf of the
CBI has vehemently submitted that pursuant to the directions issued by
the Hon’ble High Court, investigation of the aforesaid was handed over
to the CBI, pursuant to which the FIR in question was registered on
29.04.2020 at Police Station, Crime Branch, Chandigarh for the aforesaid
offences.
2.1 It is submitted that initially, the accused Aryan Singh was not
named in the fresh FIR. However, thereafter, after conclusion of the
investigation, the chargesheet came to be filed against the said Aryan
Singh also and he has been included as one of the accused.
2.2 It is submitted that thereafter both the accused Aryan Singh
and Gautam Cheema filed discharge applications before the learned Trial
Court, which came to be dismissed on merits. It is submitted that
thereafter by the impugned judgment and order, in exercise of the powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court has quashed the entire criminal
proceedings, as if, the High Court was conducting a mini trial.
2.3 It is vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances
of the case, the High Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction while quashing
the entire criminal proceedings against the accused Aryan Singh and
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
821
Gautam Cheema. It is vehemently submitted that while quashing the
criminal proceedings, the High Court has observed that the allegations /
charges against the accused have not been proved and that the
prosecution is malicious. It is submitted that at the stage of deciding the
quashing petitions against the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.