- The Hon’ble Supreme Court (SC or Court),in Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Madras v The State, represented by the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Chennai &Anr observed that the High Courts ought to be mindful and conscious about the consequences of their orders and due care must be taken to avoid suo motu exercise of such power beyond the contours of the wide and inherent powers given under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
- The observation was made while considering a criminal appeal assailing the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras (HC) where a Learned Single Judge passed an order directing transfer of 864 cases in which the final reports were filed before the respective Special Courts in relation to land grabbing cases pending in various districts.
- The subject matter of the controversy was the issue of Government Order (GO) in 2011 which created 36 Anti Land Grabbing Special Cells in the State of Tamil Nadu. Consequent to such orders, Special Courts were constituted exclusively to deal with such land grabbing cases.
- In writs filed before the HC challenging the GO, the HC, by a common judgment passed in 2015, set aside the aforementioned GO and remarked that the State Government was at liberty to enact any appropriate legislation on the lines ofA.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 or better legislations
- The impugned order of the HC was challenged before the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in 2015. The SC, in its notice, stayed the operation and implementation of the HC’s directives. Consequently, the GO continued to be in operation and the jurisdiction of the Land Grabbing Cases continued with the Special Cell/ Courts created in this regard.
- During the pendency of the SLP, a complaint (original compliant) seeking transfer of the said case from the SpecialCourt to the Court of CCB and CBCID, Metropolitan Magistrate, (MM)Egmore, Chennai was filed.
- The HC, the High Court allowed/disposed of the petition and directed the concerned police officials to take back the final report from the Special Courts and file the same before the MM, Egmore, Chennai.
- Thereafter, on special mentioning made by the Additional Public Prosecutor, the High Court, on two occasions, directed transfers 82 and 782 cases respectively, pending in the Special Courts to the jurisdictional courts.
- The SC noted that no proceedings were pending before the Learned Single Judge when the impugned transfer orders were passed by the HC. The SC remarked that passing of orders on a ‘special mentioning’ that too, in a disposed of matter was unheard of and that the Single Judge had become functus officio(having performed his duty) insofar asthe matter of original compliantwas concerned.
- Expressing its disapproval towards the approach adopted by the HC, the Court remarked that it could not comprehend how in a disposed of matter with respect to only one case, furtherorders could have been passed by the High Court transferring approximately 864cases pending in different Special Courts.
- Quashing the impugned order of the HC on the grounds of the same being without jurisdiction, the SC noted that the even on merits, the transfer orders were in the teeth of the interim order passed by the SC in the SLP.
"Loved reading this piece by Megha?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
