Supreme Court overturns High Court order quashing criminal proceedings: CBI vs. Aryan Singh (2023) INSC 338 (10 April 2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 10 April 2023

Citation: (2023) INSC 338

Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and C.T. Ravikumar, J.

Can a High Court, while exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), quash criminal proceedings at the stage of discharge by conducting a ‘mini-trial’? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case where the High Court had quashed criminal proceedings, leading to an appeal by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The core issue revolved around the extent of the High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at the stage of considering a discharge application. This judgment clarifies the limitations on the High Court’s power during the initial stages of a criminal trial. The bench consisted of Justices M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, with the judgment authored by Justice M.R. Shah.

Case Background

The case originated from an FIR No. 195 dated 30.08.2014, registered at Police Station Phase-1, Mohali, under Sections 452, 323, 365, 342, 225, 186, 506, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Subsequently, the investigation was transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), leading to the registration of a fresh FIR No. RC0512020S0001 dated 29.04.2020 at Police Station State Crime Branch, Chandigarh, for the same offenses. Initially, Aryan Singh was not named in the CBI’s FIR, but after investigation, a chargesheet was filed against him, including him as an accused. Both Aryan Singh and Gautam Cheema filed discharge applications before the Trial Court, which were dismissed. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana then quashed the criminal proceedings against them, leading to the CBI’s appeal to the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court dismissed the discharge applications filed by Aryan Singh and Gautam Cheema. Subsequently, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., quashed the entire criminal proceedings. The High Court observed that the charges against the accused were not proved and that the prosecution appeared malicious. This decision led the CBI to file an appeal before the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s order.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provision in question is Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which deals with the inherent powers of the High Court. This section states:

“Saving of inherent powers of High Court. Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”

The Supreme Court examined the extent to which the High Court can exercise this power, especially at the stage of considering a discharge application. The Court emphasized that this power should be used sparingly and judiciously, not as a substitute for a full trial.

Arguments

Arguments by the CBI:

• The CBI, represented by Shri K.M. Nataraj, ASG, argued that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by conducting a mini-trial.
• The CBI contended that the High Court erred in observing that the charges against the accused were not proved. They submitted that the charges are required to be proved during the trial, based on the evidence led.
• The CBI argued that the High Court also erred in observing that the prosecution was malicious. The investigation was handed over to the CBI by the High Court, and after investigation, a chargesheet was filed.
• The CBI submitted that the question of malicious prosecution should be considered at the conclusion of the trial, not at the stage of exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Arguments by the Accused:

• Shri R.P. Bhatt and Shri Mahesh Jethmalani, representing the accused Aryan Singh and Gautam Cheema respectively, made submissions on the merits of the allegations against each accused.
• The accused argued that the High Court was correct in quashing the proceedings as the allegations were not substantiated.
• The accused presented defenses that they argued should lead to their discharge.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

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

1. Whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by quashing the criminal proceedings at the stage of discharge.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or books in the judgment. The court primarily relied on the established principles of law regarding the exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court emphasized that the High Court’s power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.* is limited and should not be used to conduct a mini-trial. The Court reiterated that at the stage of discharge, the court should only consider whether sufficient material exists to proceed against the accused, and not whether the charges are proven.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with the procedural overreach by the High Court. The Court emphasized that the High Court’s role at the stage of discharge is not to assess the merits of the evidence or to conduct a mini-trial. The Court was clear that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by delving into the factual aspects of the case and concluding that the charges were not proved. The Court also noted that the High Court’s observation that the prosecution was malicious was premature. The primary concern of the Supreme Court was to ensure that the due process of law is followed and that the trial should proceed based on the material collected during the investigation.

The Supreme Court reasoned that the High Court should not have delved into the merits of the case at the stage of discharge. The court emphasized that the High Court’s role is limited to assessing whether there is sufficient material to proceed against the accused. The court also noted that the High Court’s observation that the prosecution was malicious was premature, as this issue should be considered at the conclusion of the trial.

The Supreme Court rejected the High Court’s interpretation, emphasizing that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not meant to be used as a substitute for a full trial. The court highlighted that the High Court should have only assessed whether a prima facie case existed and not whether the charges were proven.

The court’s decision was based on the principle that the trial court should be allowed to proceed with the trial based on the evidence presented. The court held that the High Court’s intervention at the discharge stage was premature and exceeded its jurisdiction.

“From the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has dealt with the proceedings before it, as if, the High Court was conducting a mini trial and/or the High Court was considering the applications against the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court on conclusion of trial.”

“As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court is not required to conduct the mini trial.”

“The charges are required to be proved during the trial on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution / investigating agency.”

Key Takeaways

• The High Court’s power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is limited at the stage of discharge.
• High Courts should not conduct a mini-trial or assess the merits of evidence at the discharge stage.
• The question of malicious prosecution should be considered at the conclusion of the trial, not at the discharge stage.
• The trial court should be allowed to proceed with the trial based on the evidence presented.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the Trial Court to conclude the trial within 12 months from the date of receipt of the order. The CBI was directed to produce the order before the concerned Magistrate at the earliest. All concerned were directed to cooperate with the Trial Court to conclude the trial within the prescribed time.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the High Court’s power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at the stage of discharge is limited and does not allow for a mini-trial or a premature assessment of evidence. The Supreme Court reiterated the established position of law that the High Court’s role at the discharge stage is to determine if there is sufficient material to proceed against the accused, not to determine if the charges are proven. This judgment reinforces the principle that the trial court should be allowed to conduct the trial based on the evidence presented. There is no change in the previous position of law, rather the Supreme Court has reiterated the well established principles of law.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order that had quashed the criminal proceedings against Aryan Singh and Gautam Cheema. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by conducting a mini-trial and by prematurely assessing the merits of the evidence. The Supreme Court directed the Trial Court to proceed with the trial and conclude it within 12 months, reinforcing the principle that the trial court should be allowed to conduct the trial based on the evidence presented. This judgment clarifies the limitations on the High Court’s power at the discharge stage and ensures that the trial process is not circumvented.