Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

In examining whether a Writ Petition under Article 226 is maintainable for quashing an FIR or a charge sheet, and whether the High Court can grant bail during the pendency of such proceedings, it must be borne in mind that, while the High Court can exercise its power of judicial review in criminal matters also, the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the power of judicial superintendence under Article 227 thereof, and the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, should be exercised in order to prevent abuse of the process of Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice, (Pepsi Foods Ltd.2; State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal ), or to ensure cleanliness and purity of the stream of administration of justice. (Pepsi Foods Ltd.2).

The provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, and Section 482 Cr.P.C, are devised to advance justice and not to thwart it. While the powers conferred by the aforesaid provisions have no limits, greater the power greater the care and caution which the High Court must exercise. (Pepsi Foods Ltd.2). While the power of judicial review under Article 226 may extend to quashing the impugned order if it suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record, the power of superintendence under Article 227 is limited to ensuring that the subordinate court/tribunal functions within the limits of its authority. (Pepsi Foods Ltd.2; Nagendra Nath Bora v. Commr. of Hills Division ).

The nomenclature, under which a petition is filed, does not preclude the High Court from exercising its jurisdiction which it, otherwise, possesses unless there is a special procedure prescribed which is mandatory. (Pepsi Foods Ltd.2). A petition, though filed in the High Court under Articles 226, can be treated as a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. If it finds that its jurisdiction under Article 226 could not have been invoked, the High Court can treat the petition as one under Article 227 of the Constitution or under Section 482 CrPC. (Pepsi Foods Ltd.2).

Section 482 CrPC or Article 227 of the Constitution may be resorted to for correcting grave errors committed by the subordinate courts, (Pepsi Foods Ltd.2), or to have the proceedings quashed when the complaint/charge sheet does not make out any case against the petitioners, and yet they are called upon to undergo the agony of a criminal trial. (Pepsi Foods Ltd.2). The power of superintendence under Article 227 should be exercised most sparingly, and only in appropriate cases, in order to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors. (Pepsi Foods Ltd.2; Waryam Singh v. Amarnath ; Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. v. Sukumar Mukherjee ). The High Court should not, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227, interfere with findings of fact recorded by the subordinate court or tribunal. It would not correct mere errors of fact, after examining the evidence on record or reappreciating it. The jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be exercised as a cloak of an appeal in disguise. It does not lie for rehearing the issues raised in the proceedings. (Pepsi Foods Ltd.2; Bathutmal Raichand Oswal v. Laxmibai R. Tarta ).