Supreme Court clarifies scope of revisional jurisdiction in criminal cases: Sanjay Kumar Rai vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021)

Date of the Judgment: 07 May 2021

Citation: 2021 INSC 277

Judges: Surya Kant, J., Aniruddha Bose, J.

Can a High Court dismiss a criminal revision petition without examining the merits of the case, especially when an accused seeks discharge? The Supreme Court addressed this critical question, clarifying the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). This case revolves around an appeal against a High Court order that dismissed a criminal revision petition, thereby upholding the trial court’s decision to proceed with charges against the appellant.

The Supreme Court, in this judgment, underscores the importance of the High Court’s role in preventing abuse of process and ensuring justice, particularly in cases where the accused seeks discharge. The bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose, delivered a unanimous decision.

Case Background

The case originated from a complaint lodged by Kuldeep Mishra, a newspaper correspondent, against Sanjay Kumar Rai, a partner in a gas agency. Mishra alleged that he was investigating malpractices at the gas agency and had filed a Right to Information (RTI) application to gather information. According to the complaint, Rai, while responding to Mishra’s calls, hurled abuses and threatened to kill him. Specifically, Rai allegedly threatened to shoot Mishra so many times that his face would be unrecognizable.

On 08 May 2012, Mishra filed an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) under Section 155(2) of the CrPC, seeking an investigation into his allegations. The CJM directed the local police to investigate and submit a report. During the investigation, the police recorded Mishra’s statement, which included the names of two witnesses, Mohd. Sharif Khan and Umesh Kumar Bhatt, who allegedly overheard the threatening phone call. A charge sheet was filed against Rai under Sections 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), based on Mishra’s statement and the affidavits of the two witnesses.

Rai sought discharge under Section 239 of the CrPC, arguing that the allegations were false and that the telephonic threats did not constitute an offense under Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC. He also contended that the investigation was biased. The CJM rejected Rai’s discharge application, stating that there was sufficient evidence to frame charges. Rai then approached the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which dismissed his criminal revision petition, relying on a previous Supreme Court judgment that limited interference in orders framing charges to cases with patent jurisdictional errors.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) took cognizance of the matter on 08 November 2012. Before the charges were framed, the appellant, Sanjay Kumar Rai, filed an application for discharge under Section 239 of the CrPC. He argued that the complainant had falsely implicated him and that the alleged telephonic threats did not constitute offenses under Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC. He also contended that the investigation was unfair and unilateral.

The CJM rejected the discharge application, stating that there was sufficient evidence to frame charges. The CJM noted that the accused had not filed any documentary evidence to support his discharge application and that the nature of the words used as abuse and threats was a matter of evidence to be determined at trial.

Aggrieved by the CJM’s order, the appellant approached the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad through a Criminal Revision Petition. The High Court dismissed the petition, relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Bureau of Investigation [(2018) 16 SCC 299], which held that interference in orders framing charges or refusing discharge is warranted only in the rarest of rare cases to correct a patent error of jurisdiction. The High Court found no such jurisdictional error in the CJM’s order.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation and application of the following legal provisions:

• Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section deals with intentional insult with intent to provoke a breach of the peace. It states, “Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”
• Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section deals with criminal intimidation. It states, “Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; If the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.”
• Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): This provision allows a Magistrate to order an investigation into a non-cognizable case. It states, “No police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial.”
• Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): This section deals with the discharge of the accused. It states, “If, upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under section 173 and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused, and record his reasons for so doing.”
• Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): This section deals with the High Court’s power of revision. It states, “(1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record. Explanation.—All Magistrates whether Executive or Judicial, and whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purposes of this sub-section and of section 398. (2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding.”

These provisions are crucial for understanding the context of the case, particularly the powers of the Magistrate in ordering investigations, framing charges, and discharging accused persons, as well as the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant argued that the complainant’s story was suspicious, as he initiated the phone call, put it on speaker, and had two witnesses ready to listen.
• The police did not seek call records, and the affidavits of the witnesses were accepted without recording their statements under Section 161 of the CrPC.
• The Investigating Officer was biased and overlooked the complainant’s criminal history, which included seven cases under Sections 323, 504, and 506 of the IPC.
• The complainant was not employed with ‘The Pioneer’ newspaper at the time of the alleged incident, as confirmed by a letter from the Resident Editor.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The State Counsel argued that the allegations clearly constituted offenses under Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC.
• The High Court and the CJM did not commit any error.
• The State Counsel relied on State of Karnataka v. M.R. Hiremath [(2019) 7 SCC 515], which held that the court should not delve into the evidentiary value of the material at the stage of considering discharge.
• The State Counsel also cited Srilekha Sentelkumar v. CBI [(2019) 7 SCC 828], which stated that it was impermissible to look into the merits of the case while exercising powers under Section 239 of the CrPC.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue that the court addressed was:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in dismissing the criminal revision petition without examining the merits of the case, particularly concerning the order refusing to discharge the accused.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court distinguished Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Bureau of Investigation [(2018) 16 SCC 299], stating that it pertained to a special legislation (Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988) with specific bars on revisional jurisdiction, unlike the present case.
• The Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle laid down in Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra [(1977) 4 SCC 551], holding that orders framing charges or refusing discharge are not purely interlocutory and can be interfered with to prevent abuse of process.
• The Supreme Court cited Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal [(1979) 3 SCC 413] to emphasize that the trial court must sift through evidence when considering a discharge application.
• The Supreme Court did not explicitly comment on State of Karnataka v. M.R. Hiremath [(2019) 7 SCC 515] and Srilekha Sentelkumar v. CBI [(2019) 7 SCC 828], but implicitly held that the High Court should not have dismissed the revision petition solely based on these authorities.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to ensure that the High Court exercises its revisional jurisdiction effectively to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice. The Court emphasized that while the High Court should be circumspect in interfering with orders framing charges, it cannot adopt a hands-off approach, especially when there is a likelihood of serious prejudice to the rights of a citizen. The Court was concerned that the High Court had not examined the merits of the case, including the fairness of the investigation and the suspicious circumstances surrounding the complainant’s allegations. The Court also noted that the trial court should not act as a mere post office while considering discharge application.

The Court’s reasoning was a mix of factual analysis and legal interpretation. The factual analysis focused on the circumstances of the case, such as the complainant’s suspicious behavior and the biased investigation. The legal interpretation focused on the scope of the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction and the trial court’s duty while considering a discharge application. The Court’s decision was driven by a desire to ensure that the criminal justice system operates fairly and effectively.

Key Takeaways

• The High Court’s revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the CrPC is not limited to jurisdictional errors alone. It extends to preventing abuse of process and securing the ends of justice.
• Orders framing charges or refusing discharge are not purely interlocutory and can be interfered with by the High Court in appropriate cases.
• The High Court should not adopt a hands-off approach while exercising its revisional jurisdiction, especially when there is a likelihood of serious prejudice to the rights of a citizen.
• Trial courts must sift through the evidence and not act as a mere post office while considering discharge applications.
• The fairness of the investigation is a relevant factor that the High Court should consider while exercising its revisional jurisdiction.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order dated 28 November 2018 and remanded the case back to the High Court for reconsideration in accordance with law.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no specific amendment analysis in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the CrPC is not limited to jurisdictional errors alone and extends to preventing abuse of process and securing the ends of justice. This judgment clarifies the scope of revisional jurisdiction and emphasizes the High Court’s role in ensuring a fair criminal justice system. It reinforces the principle that orders framing charges or refusing discharge are not purely interlocutory and can be interfered with by the High Court in appropriate cases. This decision does not introduce a new position in law but reinforces the existing position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Sanjay Kumar Rai v. State of Uttar Pradesh clarifies the scope of the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction in criminal cases, particularly concerning orders framing charges or refusing discharge. The Court held that the High Court erred in dismissing the revision petition without examining the merits of the case. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court has a crucial role in preventing abuse of process and ensuring justice. This judgment reinforces the principle that the High Court should not adopt a hands-off approach in such cases and should exercise its revisional jurisdiction effectively. The case was remanded back to the High Court for reconsideration.