Introduction:

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India not too long ago on 07/05/2021 in
Sanjay Kumar Rai v State of Uttar Pradesh and Another¹
 reiterated that orders framing cost or refusing discharge
are neither interlocutory nor remaining in nature and are subsequently not
affected by the bar of Section 397(2) of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”).

Section 397(2) of CrPC bars the facility of the Courts to train
revision in relation to any interlocutory order handed in any
enchantment, inquiry, trial or different continuing. The time period interlocutory
order has not been outlined within the CrPC. The time period interlocutory
order has been utilized in a really restrictive sense and never in any
broad or creative sense.² It could also be outlined as orders which
are purely interim or short-term which don’t resolve or contact upon
the necessary rights or the liabilities of the events.

Facts:

A felony enchantment was filed difficult the order handed by the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad whereby the felony revision
in opposition to the order refusing to discharge the appellant has been
dismissed.

Charge sheet got here to be filed in opposition to the appellant/accused for
offences beneath Section 504 and Section 506 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (“IPC”) based mostly on the assertion of the
complainant and statements of two witnesses on affidavit. However,
the model of the appellant was by no means taken on file to contemplate
his facet of the story. The Learned Court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate took cognizance of the offence on 08/11/2012.

The appellant filed an software for discharge beneath Section
239 of CrPC on the grounds that he has been falsely implicated; the
allegations of telephonic threats don’t represent an offence
beneath Section 504 and 506 of the IPC and that the investigation was
not correct. The Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate (‘CJM’)
rejected the appliance of the appellant inter alia on the bottom
that there was ample proof on file to border cost
in opposition to the accused amongst others.

The appellant being aggrieved by the rejection order filed a
Criminal Revision Petition earlier than the High Court in search of reversal
of CJM’s Order. The High Court counting on the choice of
Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited versus Central
Bureau of Investigation³ noticed
that order of discharge will be interfered solely within the rarest of
uncommon circumstances solely to appropriate the patent error of jurisdiction. The
High Court held that since there was no patent error of
jurisdiction, the revision petition was dismissed.

Decision

The Apex Court distinguished the Asian Resurfacing Case
which was relied by the High Court limiting the scope of revision
to jurisdictional errors on the bottom that within the stated case
problem was to the cost framed beneath Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 (“POCA”) and the stated judgment itself holds
that not solely POCA was a particular statue but additionally comprises a particular
bar for train of revisional jurisdiction beneath Section 19.
Further, the court docket additionally held that in Asian Resurfacing Case this
court docket relied on Madhu Limaye v State of Maharashtra⁴ whereby it
was noticed as follows:

The Court additional counting on Madhu Limaye Case held
that orders framing fees or refusing discharge are neither
interlocutory nor remaining in nature and are subsequently not affected by
the bar of Section 397(2) of CrPC the court docket additional acknowledged
that High Courts have the inherent jurisdiction to forestall abuse of
means of court docket or to safe the ends of justice.

Supreme Court held that the discretion should be invoked
fastidiously and judiciously nonetheless, an entire fingers off strategy is
not advisable. Courts should intrude in distinctive circumstances in
which there’s a chance of great prejudice on the rights of
the citizen like when the contents of a grievance or the fabric
on file is a brazen try to persecute an harmless individual, in
which it turns into crucial on the courts to forestall the abuse of
means of court docket.

The Court relied on Union of India v Prafulla Kumar
Samal⁵ and held that whereas deciding the
discharge functions trial courts usually are not alleged to merely act
as submit workplace and has to contemplate the broad prospects, complete
impact of proof and paperwork produced and the essential infirmities
on file and have to look at whether or not there may be ample materials
on file to strive the suspect.

The Apex Court whereas observing that the High Court have
dedicated jurisdictional error by not deciding the case on advantage
and overlooking the truth that discharge is a worthwhile proper
supplied to the accused, remanded the case again to the High Court
to resolve the matter in accordance with the settled place of
regulation.

Concluding Remarks:

The Supreme Court reiterated that order framing fees or
refusing discharge are neither interlocutory nor remaining in nature
and thus the bar beneath Section 397(2) wouldn’t apply. The High
Courts even have the inherent powers to forestall the abuse of
means of court docket or to safe the ends of justice in circumstances the place
there was chance of prejudice to the rights of the citizen
and in circumstances the place there may be brazen try to falsely implicate an
harmless individual.

Further, Supreme Court additionally cautioned the Trial Courts to to not
act as mere submit places of work whereas coping with discharge functions
and to look at whether or not there exist ample grounds to strive the
suspect.

Footnotes

1.
Criminal Appeal No 472 of 2021.

2. Amar
Nath and others v State of Haryana and Another (1977) 4 SCC
137

3. (2018)
16 SCC 299.

4. 1977)
4 SCC 551.

5. (1979)
3 SCC 4

The content material of this text is meant to supply a normal
information to the subject material. Specialist recommendation ought to be sought
about your particular circumstances.