Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: section 397 482 in Jatinder Pal Singh vs Central Bureau Of Investigation & Ors. on 17 January, 2022Matching Fragments
vi) Aggrieved by the aforementioned orders, the Petitioner has approached this Court, under Sections 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Code, praying for setting aside the impugned orders.
3. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl. Rev. P. 493/2012, vide its Order dated 5th September 2012, in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Anur Kumar Jain v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 178 (2011) DLT 501 (DB), held that the revision is not maintainable. The High Court accordingly directed the revision petition to be treated only under Section 482 of Code and accordingly the Registry was directed to register this petition as Crl. M.C.
5. The said Criminal Appeal No. 1385 of 2013 of the present Petitioner was clubbed with a bunch of matters challenging the same question of law under the title "Asian Resurfacing Road Agency Pvt Ltd. v. CBI" which was subsequently decided by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court holding inter alia that the order framing charge is neither purely an interlocutory order nor a final order and hence, the jurisdiction of the High Court is not barred irrespective of the label of the petition, be it under Section 397 or 482 of the Code or Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
22. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2018) 16 SCC 299 has held that an order framing charge can be interfered under the revisional jurisdiction. The Hon‟ble Court held as under:
―37. Thus, we declare the law to be that order framing charge is not purely an interlocutory order nor a final order. Jurisdiction of the High Court is not barred irrespective of the label of a petition, be it under Sections 397 or 482 CrPC or Article 227 of the Constitution. However, the said jurisdiction is to be exercised consistent with the legislative policy to ensure expeditious disposal of a trial without the same being in any manner hampered. Thus considered, the challenge to an order of charge should be entertained in a rarest of rare case only to correct a patent error of jurisdiction and not to reappreciate the matter. Even where such challenge is entertained and stay is granted, the matter must be decided on day-to- day basis so that stay does not operate for an unduly long period. Though no mandatory time-limit may be fixed, the decision may not exceed two-three months normally. If it remains pending longer, duration of stay should not exceed six months, unless extension is granted by a specific speaking order, as already indicated. Mandate of speedy justice applies to the PC Act cases as well as other cases where at trial stage proceedings are stayed by the higher court i.e., the High Court or a court below the High Court, as the case may be. In all pending matters before the High Courts or other courts relating to the PC Act or all other civil or criminal cases, where stay of proceedings in a pending trial is operating, stay will automatically lapse after six months from today unless extended by a speaking order on the above parameters. Same course may also be adopted by civil and criminal appellate/Revisional Courts under the jurisdiction of the High Courts. The trial courts may, on expiry of the above period, resume the proceedings without waiting for any other intimation unless express order extending stay is produced.‖
33. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the same case has also enunciated a set of principles which the High Courts must keep in mind while exercising their jurisdiction under the provision:
―27. Having discussed the scope of jurisdiction under these two provisions i.e. Section 397 and Section 482 of the Code and the fine line of jurisdictional distinction, now it will be appropriate for us to enlist the principles with reference to which the courts should exercise such jurisdiction. However, it is not only difficult but is inherently impossible to state with precision such principles. At best and upon objective analysis of various judgments of this Court, we are able to cull out some of the principles to be considered for proper exercise of jurisdiction, particularly, with regard to quashing of charge either in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 or Section 482 of the Code or together, as the case may be: