Central Bureau of Investigation Versus Aryan Singh Etc.

Central Bureau of Investigation Versus Aryan Singh Etc.  

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1025-1026_OF 2023

(@ SLP (CRL.) NOS. 12794-12795 OF 2022)

Central Bureau of Investigation …Appellant(s)

Versus

Aryan Singh Etc. …Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the

impugned common judgment and order passed by the

High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in

Criminal Misc. Application Nos. 54107 of 2021 and 8233

of 2022 by which the High Court, in exercise of the

powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has quashed the

criminal proceedings of the FIR No. RC0512020S0001

dated 29.04.2020 registered at Police Station State Grime

Branch, Chandigarh under Sections 452, 323, 365, 342,

186, 225, 506 and 120-B IPC (earlier registered as FIR

Criminal Appeal Nos. 1025-1026 of 2023 Page 1 of 8

No.195 dated 30.08.2014 under Sections 452, 323, 365,

342, 225, 186, 506, 120-B IPC at Police Station Phase-1,

Mohali) as well as all the subsequent proceedings arising

out of the same, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)

has preferred the present appeals.

2. Shri K.M. Nataraj, learned ASG appearing on behalf

of the CBI has vehemently submitted that pursuant to the

directions issued by the Hon’ble High Court, investigation

of the aforesaid was handed over to the CBI, pursuant to

which the FIR in question was registered on 29.04.2020 at

Police Station, Crime Branch, Chandigarh for the

aforesaid offences.

2.1 It is submitted that initially, the accused Aryan Singh

was not named in the fresh FIR. However, thereafter,

after conclusion of the investigation, the chargesheet

came to be filed against the said Aryan Singh also and he

has been included as one of the accused.

2.2 It is submitted that thereafter both the accused

Aryan Singh and Gautam Cheema filed discharge

applications before the learned Trial Court, which came to

be dismissed on merits. It is submitted that thereafter by

the impugned judgment and order, in exercise of the

Criminal Appeal Nos. 1025-1026 of 2023 Page 2 of 8

powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court has

quashed the entire criminal proceedings, as if, the High

Court was conducting a mini trial.

2.3 It is vehemently submitted that in the facts and

circumstances of the case, the High Court has exceeded

in its jurisdiction while quashing the entire criminal

proceedings against the accused Aryan Singh and

Gautam Cheema. It is vehemently submitted that while

quashing the criminal proceedings, the High Court has

observed that the allegations / charges against the

accused have not been proved and that the prosecution is

malicious. It is submitted that at the stage of deciding the

quashing petitions against the order passed by the

learned Trial Court, refusing to discharge the accused, the

High Court ought not to have considered and/or observed

that the charges are not proved. It is submitted that the

charges are required to be proved during the trial and on

the basis of the evidence led. It is further submitted that

even the High Court has materially erred in observing that

the prosecution is malicious. It is submitted that the

investigation was handed over to the CBI, pursuant to the

directions issued by the High Court and, thereafter, after

conclusion of the investigation, the accused came to be

Criminal Appeal Nos. 1025-1026 of 2023 Page 3 of 8

chargesheeted and therefore, the initiation of the criminal

proceedings / proceedings cannot be said to be malicious.

It is submitted that whether any criminal proceedings is

malicious, is also required to be considered at the

conclusion of the trial and not at this stage, namely, at the

stage of exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

2.4 Number of submissions have been made on merits

also by Shri Nataraj, learned ASG, however, for the

reasons stated hereinabove, we are inclined to set aside

the impugned common judgment and order passed by the

High Court by relegating the accused to face the trial and

thereafter the trial is to proceed against the accused, we

are not considering the submissions made on behalf of

the CBI as well as on behalf of the accused on merits.

3. Present appeals are vehemently opposed by Shri

R.P. Bhatt, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of

the accused Aryan Singh and Shri Mahesh Jethmalani,

learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the

accused Gautam Cheema.

3.1 Both the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respective accused have made submissions on merits of

Criminal Appeal Nos. 1025-1026 of 2023 Page 4 of 8

the allegations made against each accused. However, all

those submissions are the defences, which are required

to be considered during the trial. Therefore, we are not

elaborately dealing with and/or considering the

submissions made on behalf of the CBI as well as the

accused on merits on the allegations against the accused

as any observation of this Court may affect either of the

parties during the trial.

4. Having gone through the impugned common

judgment and order passed by the High Court quashing

the criminal proceedings and discharging the accused, we

are of the opinion that the High Court has exceeded in its

jurisdiction in quashing the entire criminal proceedings in

exercise of the limited powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

and/or in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India.

4.1 From the impugned common judgment and order

passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court

has dealt with the proceedings before it, as if, the High

Court was conducting a mini trial and/or the High Court

was considering the applications against the judgment

and order passed by the learned Trial Court on conclusion

of trial. As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of

Criminal Appeal Nos. 1025-1026 of 2023 Page 5 of 8

discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings,

while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,

the Court is not required to conduct the mini trial. The

High Court in the common impugned judgment and order

has observed that the charges against the accused are

not proved. This is not the stage where the prosecution /

investigating agency is/are required to prove the charges.

The charges are required to be proved during the trial on

the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution /

investigating agency. Therefore, the High Court has

materially erred in going in detail in the allegations and the

material collected during the course of the investigation

against the accused, at this stage. At the stage of

discharge and/or while exercising the powers under

Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court has a very limited

jurisdiction and is required to consider “whether any

sufficient material is available to proceed further against

the accused for which the accused is required to be tried

or not”.

4.2 One another reason pointed by the High Court is

that the initiation of the criminal proceedings / proceedings

is malicious. At this stage, it is required to be noted that

the investigation was handed over to the CBI pursuant to

the directions issued by the High Court. That thereafter,

Criminal Appeal Nos. 1025-1026 of 2023 Page 6 of 8

on conclusion of the investigation, the accused persons

have been chargesheeted. Therefore, the High Court has

erred in observing at this stage that the initiation of the

criminal proceedings / proceedings is malicious. Whether

the criminal proceedings was/were malicious or not, is not

required to be considered at this stage. The same is

required to be considered at the conclusion of the trial. In

any case, at this stage, what is required to be considered

is a prima facie case and the material collected during the

course of the investigation, which warranted the accused

to be tried.

5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated

above, when the High Court has exceeded in its

jurisdiction in quashing the entire criminal proceedings

and applying the law laid down by this Court in catena of

decisions on exercise of the powers at the stage of

discharge and/or quashing the criminal proceedings, the

impugned common judgment and order passed by the

High Court quashing the criminal proceedings against the

accused is unsustainable and the same deserves to be

quashed and set aside.

5.1 In view of the above and for the reasons stated

above, present appeals succeed. The impugned common

Criminal Appeal Nos. 1025-1026 of 2023 Page 7 of 8

judgment and order passed by the High Court quashing

and setting aside the criminal proceedings against the

accused Aryan Singh and Gautam Cheema is/are

quashed and set aside. The accused to face the trial for

which they are chargesheeted. However, it is observed

that all the contentions and defences, which are available

to the respective parties are kept open, to be considered

by the learned Trial Court during the trial.

Considering the fact that the allegations in the FIR

relates back to the year 2014 and as more than eight

years have passed, we direct the learned Trial Court to

conclude the trial at the earliest, but not later than 12

months from the date of the receipt of the present order.

CBI to produce the present order before the concerned

Magistrate at the earliest. All concerned are directed to

cooperate with the learned Trial Court in concluding the

trial within the time prescribed mentioned hereinabove.

Present appeals are allowed accordingly.

………………………………….J.

 [M.R. SHAH]

NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.

APRIL 10, 2023. [C.T. RAVIKUMAR]

Criminal Appeal Nos. 1025-1026 of 2023 Page 8 of 8