STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS versus ANIL KUMAR SHARMA AND ANOTHER ,

Citation: [2015] 7 S.C.R. 166 · Decided: 14-05-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 7 S.C.R. 166 
A 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS 
B , 
v. 
ANIL KUMAR SHARMAAND ANOTHER 
(Criminal Appeal No. 789 of 2015) 
MAY 14, 2015 
[DIPAK MISRA, R. K. AGRAWAL AND 
PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] 
c 
High Court-Power of- To issue directions on judicial 
side, relating to the procedure to be adopted in criminal trials 
- Scope of - Writ petition for quashing of FIR - During 
pendency thereof, High Court issued directions to trial courts 
not to accept the reports u/s. 173 Cr. P. C., unless accused 
D are produced, and to the police authorities to get installed 
photocopying machines at the police stations for preparing 
the copies required to be supplied u/s. 207 Cr.P. C. - It also 
provided feed back on the suggested amendments in Cr.PC., 
including one to get dispensed with the procedure as provided 
E uls. 209 Cr.PC. - Even after the petition got infructuous by 
virtue of closure of FIR, the High Court continued to monitor 
the process of expediting the original trials in the State - On 
appeal, Held: High Court erred in law treating the writ petition 
for quashing FIR as a PIL and passing sweeping directions 
F which are not in conformity with the provisions of Cr.PC. 
without there being sufficient data and material - No court 
can issue a mandate to legislature to enact a particular law-
Moreover, direction for getting Cr.PC. amendment was issued 
when Central Government was not even a party- However, 
G on the-basis of concession on behalf of the State, it is directed 
to expedite the trials by making arrangements for preparing 
the copies of papers before filing of charge-sheet and make 
efforts to apprehend the accused - Judicial restraint- Code 
H of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss. 173, 207 and 209. 
166 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. ANIL KUMAR SHARMA 167 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
I It· 4 
A 
HELD: 1. No person, however high, is above the 
law. No institution is exempt from accountat?ility, 
including the judiciary. Accountability of the judiciary in · 
respect of its judicial functions and orders is vouchsafed B 
by provisions for appeal, reversion and review of orders. 
[Para 25] [180-G-H] 
2. The concern of the High Court regarding delay 
in criminal trials, expressed by it can be appreciated but c 
the manner in which sweeping directions were issued 
in the present case by the High Court, cannot be 
appreciated, particularly the directions, which are not in 
' 
conformity with the provisions of Cr.P.C. No court can 
issue a mandate to a legislature to enact a particular law. o 
[Paras 13 and 15] [173-B-C; 174-A] 
State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. v. Mahindra and 
Mahindra Limited (2011) 13 SCC 77: 2011 (5) 
SCR 509; Pravasi Bha/ai Sangathan v. Union of India 
E 
and Ors. (2014) 11SCC477:2014(4) SCR 446-relied 
on. 
3. The High Court has clearly erred in law in 
treating the writ petition which was filed for quashing of F 
FIR, and had become infructuous, as Public lnterest 
Litigation, and issued sweeping directions, without there 
being sufficient data and material before if to pass 
directions. [Para 26) [181-A-B] 
· 4. There is no requirement u/s. 173 Cr.P.C. for the G 
Investigating Officer to produce the accused along with 
the charge-sheet. The High Court has not cared to see 
that where there are several accused and only some of 
them could be arr.ested and remanded to judicial H 
168 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 7 S.C.R. 
A custody, and others are on bail, how all of them can be 
produced together by the police. The High Court should 
have realized that trial of under-trial prisoners cannot be 
allowed to be delayed, for want of presence of accused 
absconding in the case. [Para 26) [181-B-D) 
B 
5. There is no mandate in Section 207 Cr.P.C. 
which requires the police to prepare copies of all the 
papers before the chargesheet is filed. For example, the 
confessional statements recorded under Section 164 
C Cr.P.C. by the Magistrates cannot be supposed to be 
lying with the Investigating Officer. So far as requirement 
, of photocopying machine at the police station is 
concerned, similar machines could have been directed 
to be provided in the courts. [Para 27] [181-G-H; 182-A] 
D 
6. The High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in 
asking the State Authorities to file compliance report, in 
the matter of dispensing with requirement of committal 
of cases by the Magistrate to the Court of Sessions, as 
E provided in Section 209 Cr.P.C. The Central Government 
was not even party in the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.