Case title:
Shiv Kumar Sharma v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Date of Order:
30th October 2023
Bench:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay S. Oka
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Mithal
Parties:
Appellant(s): Shiv Kumar Sharma
Respondent(s): The State of Madhya Pradesh
SUBJECT:
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Supreme Court’ or ‘the Court’) set aside the order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh observing that the High Court had dismissed the appellant’s plea without thoroughly considering the substantive aspects of the case. Consequently, the Supreme Court decided to send the matter back to the High Court for reevaluation while simultaneously prolonging the temporary relief that had been provided.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)
- Section 482
- Section 173
OVERVIEW:
- Appellant worked as an assistant society manager in X society and there were allegations against him of financial indiscipline and misuse of public funds meant for farmers.
- An FIR was filed against the appellant over the same allegations.
- The appellant filed a petition under section 482 of CrPC for quashing of the FIR.
- The High Court rejected the said petition without going through the merits of the case.
- The Appellant has now approached the Supreme Court over the impugned order of the High Court.
ISSUES RAISED:
- Is the High Court within its rights to issue an order directing ample opportunity be given to the accused during investigation before submission of final report under section 173 of CrPC?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT:
- The High Court did not investigate the merits of the case.
- The High Court’s approach is contrary to law.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS:
- The High Court erred in its dismissal of the appellant’s plea and failed to engage in the comprehensive examination of the factual underpinnings.
- The High Court’s mandate that the investigating officer facilitate the appellant’s elucidation of the evidence amassed against them during the investigation before the submission of the conclusive report section 173 of CrPC contravened the law.
- The Supreme Court annulled the challenged judgment handed down by the High Court.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court astutely noted the peculiarity of the High Court’s directive, which seemingly diverged from established legal conventions. The Court overturned the High Court’s judgment and extended interim relief and restored the case to the High Court emphasizing the imperative of due process and thorough consideration of the merits of the appellant’s case. The Court allowed appeal in terms of signed order and disposed of any pending applications.
