SANJAY KUMAR RAI versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

Citation: [2021] 7 S.C.R. 143 · Decided: 07-05-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA, SURYA KANT, ANIRUDDHA BOSE · Disposal: Directions issued

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
143
SANJAY KUMAR RAI
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 472 of 2021)
MAY 07, 2021
[N. V. RAMANA, CJI, SURYA KANT AND
ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
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.
[2021] 7 S.C.R. 143
143
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
144
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
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 under-
appreciated 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.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
145

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.