Case title:
Mamta Shailesh Chandra v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors
Date of Order:
29th January, 2024
Bench:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aniruddha Bose
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar
Parties:
Appellant(s): Mamta Shailesh Chandra
Respondent(s): The State of Uttarakhand & Ors
SUBJECT:
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Supreme Court’ or ‘the Court’) ruled that filing a petition prior to the submission of a chargesheet does not hinder a court from examining the facts of the cases and pronouncing a merit-based judgment. The court set aside the impugned order of the High Court of Uttarakhand and directed the authorities to not arrest the appellant until the High Court had given a ruling based on the merits of the case.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC):
- Section 420
- Section 409
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC):
- Section 482
The Constitution of India:
OVERVIEW:
- Financial irregularities were detected in the cooperative bank where the appellant was posted as branch manager.
- An FIR was filed against the appellant under section 420 and 409 of the IPC.
- The appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court of Uttarakhand for quashing said FIR.
- The writ petition was dismissed by the High Court based on the fact that the petition had been filed prior to the submission of the chargesheet.
- The appellant has appealed against the High Court’s dismissal of the petition before this Court.
ISSUES RAISED:
- Whether the petition filed in the High Court was infructuous?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT:
- Appellant was within their rights to file a writ petition prior to the submission of the chargesheet.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT:
- The petition was pointless as the chargesheet had not been submitted yet.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS:
- The Supreme Court disagreed with the ruling of the High Court.
- The Court relied on the case of Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujrat & Ors, wherein the chargesheet was submitted after the institution of a petition filed under section 482 of CrPC. The Apex Court had held that the petition shall still be examined.
- The Court opined that the appellant’s petition was not infructuous, the allegations in the FIR were eligible for examination.
- The High Court’s order was set aside.
CONCLUSION:
The Supreme Court held that if a petition is filed before a chargesheet has been filed, it does not disallow the courts from examining the impugned offences. It held that the High Court had erred in its judgment and remanded the matter back to the High Court. The Court, based on the materials disclosed, further laid directives to not arrest the appellant until the High Court comes to a decision based upon the merits of the case, exercising its jurisdiction under Article 12 of the Constitution. The petition was thus allowed and any pending applications were disposed of.
