JUDGEMENT SUMMARY:
Rakesh Kumar Pandey & Anr. vs State Of U.P. & Anr.
DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
15th February 2022
JUDGES:
Sangeeta Chandra, J.
PARTIES:
Rakesh Kumar Pandey & Anr. (Revisionists)
State Of U.P. & Anr. (Respondent)
SUBJECT
The High Court of Allahabad was adjudicating the criminal revision petition where the judgement of the Trial Court was challenged. The Court discussed the scope of powers while hearing applications for discharge under Section 227 of CrPC.
AN OVERVIEW
1. In 2016, an FIR was lodged alleging that the Revisionist 1 had, who was Consolidation Officer, had tried to pressurise the Consolidation Commissioner to cancel his transfer. On being refused, the Revisionists along with accomplices had abused and manhandled the Commissioner. The Revisionist 2 had tried to attack him with the intention to kill him but was interrupted by the office peons.
2. The Revisionist had filed a discharge application to quash the FIR under Section 307 of IPC. The Revisionists had alleged the following:
a. They were falsely implicated and the charges against them in the chargesheet should not be framed.
b. The investigation was biased and the medicolegal reports of the victim were fabricated.
c. There was a mistake in the mention of the name of Revisionist 2.
3. The Additional Sessions Judge had recorded the prosecution’s oral argument regarding the fairness in carrying out the investigation and the discharge application was rejected by the Trial Court in 2019
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Indian Penal Code
- Section 307- Outlines attempt to murder
Code of Criminal Procedure
- Section 227- Provides for the discharge of the accused
- Section 397- Empowers High Court to call for records which exercising revisional jurisdiction
- Section 401- Outlines High Court’s power of revision
- Section 482- Provides High Court with inherent power
ISSUES
- Whether the High Court could exercise the revisional jurisdiction?
- Whether the FIR could be quashed by the High Court?
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT
1. In Amit Kapoor vs Ramesh Chander and Ors., it was observed that the revisional jurisdiction of HC was a very limited one and could not be exercised on a routine basis. Revisional Jurisdiction was to be invoked in cases where:
a. The challenged decision was grossly erroneous and did not comply with the provisions of law.
b. The Findings were not based on evidence, and the material evidence was ignored.
c. Judicial discretion was exercised arbitrarily or perversely.
2. It was held that the Court would be reluctant to adjudicate whether or not the charges were framed properly in accordance with the law while exercising revisional jurisdiction unless the case substantially fell within the aforementioned categories. As per Section 397 of CrPC, the High Court had to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of an order passed by the Trial Court or any inferior Court which ultimately aimed at securing the ends of justice. Under CrPC, the framing of charge was an advanced stage in the proceedings.
3. In Haryana v Bhajan Lal, Supreme Court had directed the Court to exercise the power of quashing of criminal proceedings sparingly with great circumspection in the rarest of rare cases. The enquiry regarding the reliability or genuineness of the allegations made in the F.I.R. or the complaint was not justified. The Court would not interfere in the decision based on mere apprehension or suspicion
4. It was further stated that the Court should hear the parties and consider the ‘record of the case’ and the submitted documents to frame the charges and to either discharge or convict the accused. At the initial stage of framing of charge, the Court would be concerned with strong suspicion regarding the commitment of the offence by the accused which could be proved in trial and not the proof. The Court would see if the recorded materials and facts were compatible with the accused’s innocence or not.
5. In Palvinder Singh vs Balwinder Singh, the Supreme Court had observed the following as the duties of the Trial Court at the time of framing of charge:
a. The Court had to look for the presence of sufficient materials for the Trial of the accused.
b. The documents and evidence produced by the prosecution supporting the chargesheet were required to be considered and not examined in a detailed manner.
c. Mini trial was not to be conducted.
d. The discharge application would be allowed if after examination of the Case Diary and other evidence collected by the Investigating Officer, no material against the accused were found.
6. In Helios and Matheson Information Technology Ltd vs Rajiv Sawhney, the Supreme Court held that the accused and defence would not put forth any material at the time of framing of charge. The acceptance of the contention of the accused would imply that the accused were permitted to adduce their evidence and the same would be examined at the stage of framing of charge which was against the criminal jurisprudence.
7. In State of Karnataka vs M.R. Hiremath, it was held that the Court while considering discharge would not look into the evidentiary value of the material adduced or the merits of the case. While considering an application for discharge, the Court would assume that the materials recorded by the Prosecution were true and examine them to determine the existence of the ingredients that constituted offence. The Court was not expected to delve deeper into the matter, holding that the materials would not warrant a conviction.
CONCLUSION
The finding of the High Court of Allahabad was that the Trial Court had considered precisely every aspect of the matter before passing the impugned judgement. Due to lack of any error in the same, the Criminal Revision petition was dismissed. The High Court was the highest Court in the State to exercise criminal jurisdiction and the inherent powers were to make any order for the purposes of securing the ends of justice. It was noted that the scope under Criminal Revision Jurisdiction was restricted to correction of any apparent error in law or a perversity in fact.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
