Summary
After an investigation entrusted to the CBI by the High Court led to a chargesheet for offences including house trespass, wrongful confinement and kidnapping, and the trial court dismissed the accused's discharge applications, the Punjab and Haryana High Court under Section 482 CrPC quashed the entire proceedings, observing that the charges were not proved and the prosecution was malicious. The Supreme Court set the order aside, holding that at the stage of discharge or quashing the court must not conduct a mini trial or require the prosecution to prove the charges, its limited jurisdiction being to see whether sufficient material exists to put the accused on trial, and that whether a prosecution is malicious is to be decided at the conclusion of the trial, particularly where the investigation was itself court-directed.
Issues
- What is the scope of the High Court's jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC or Article 226 when quashing criminal proceedings after the trial court has refused discharge.
- Whether the High Court could hold at that stage that the charges were not proved or that the prosecution was malicious.
Provisions considered
- Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The inherent power to quash is limited to considering whether sufficient material is available to proceed against the accused; the High Court exceeded it by examining the allegations and material in detail as if conducting a mini trial. (¶¶ 4, 4.1, 5)
- Sections 452, 323, 365, 342, 186, 225, 506 and 120-B, Indian Penal Code, 1860Offences for which the accused were chargesheeted by the CBI after the court-directed investigation. (¶¶ 1, 2)
Held
- At the stage of discharge or quashing under Section 482 CrPC the court does not conduct a mini trial and the prosecution is not required to prove the charges, which must be proved at trial on evidence; the court's jurisdiction is very limited and confined to whether sufficient material is available to proceed against the accused. The High Court materially erred in going into the allegations and investigation material in detail and holding the charges not proved. (¶¶ 4, 4.1, 5)
- Where the investigation was handed to the CBI on the High Court's own directions and the accused were chargesheeted on its conclusion, the High Court erred in observing that the prosecution was malicious; that question is to be considered at the conclusion of the trial, the only question at this stage being whether a prima facie case and material warrant trial. (¶ 4.2)
Result
Appeals allowed; High Court's common judgment dated 04.05.2022 quashing the criminal proceedings against the two accused set aside; the accused to face trial, with all contentions and defences kept open; trial court directed to conclude the trial within twelve months, the allegations dating to 2014.