29 August 2024 Criminal Appeals & Suspension of Sentence >> Criminal Law  

In a recent decision, the Supreme Court addressed a complex legal issue surrounding the scope of revisional powers under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) and the handling of interlocutory orders. The appeal in question originated from an unusual judgment by the High Court of Judicature at Madras, which set aside an order framing charges against the Respondent No. 2 (hereinafter "A-2") in a criminal case, despite prior dismissal of similar applications at both the Sessions Court and the High Court.

Background"

The case stemmed from FIR No. 2074 of 2009, registered at the Dharmapuri Police Station. The FIR accused nine individuals, including Respondent No. 2 (A-2), of serious offenses such as assault, attempted murder, and murder. The allegations arose from an incident on November 24, 2009, where violence erupted at an AIADMK party office, resulting in the death of the complainant's brother, Veeramani.

After an extensive investigation, a charge sheet was submitted, implicating 31 individuals. Respondent No. 2 sought discharge from the case under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., which was denied by the Sessions Court. This denial was confirmed by the High Court in an earlier revision application. Subsequently, when charges were framed, A-2 filed an application under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. to alter the charges, claiming insufficient evidence against him. This application was also dismissed by the Sessions Court.

High Court’s Revisional Order:

The Respondent No. 2 then filed a revision application under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. challenging the dismissal of his alteration application. The High Court, in a surprising move, set aside the charges framed against A-2, despite the earlier orders that had rejected his discharge application and the modification request.

The High Court’s decision was criticized for disregarding the finality of previous orders and for intervening in an interlocutory matter, which is generally impermissible under Section 397(2) of Cr.P.C. This section explicitly bars revisional jurisdiction from interfering with interlocutory orders, reflecting a principle that such matters should not be subject to frequent appellate scrutiny.

Supreme Court’s Analysis:

The Supreme Court, in reviewing the case, emphasized that the revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 is intended for correcting gross legal errors or jurisdictional defects, not for revisiting interlocutory orders. It reiterated the observations from Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander that revisional jurisdiction is very limited and should not be exercised routinely, particularly in relation to interim orders.

The Court found that the High Court’s decision to set aside the charge framing order was flawed as it ignored the established legal principle that interlocutory orders, such as those concerning charge modifications, are not subject to revision. It was noted that A-2’s persistent applications to alter charges, after previous denials, appeared to be a deliberate attempt to delay proceedings, which the Supreme Court condemned as an abuse of the legal process.

Ruling and Directions:

The Supreme Court ruled to restore the Sessions Court’s order, emphasizing the need to proceed with the trial expeditiously. It criticized the misuse of legal procedures to derail the trial and imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on Respondent No. 2, to be paid to the appellant within two weeks.

The Court directed the Sessions Court to continue with the trial against all accused, including A-2, and warned that any non-cooperation from the accused would lead to the cancellation of their bail. This ruling underscores the importance of adhering to procedural norms and discouraging frivolous litigation tactics that obstruct the delivery of justice.

Conclusion:

This case illustrates the Supreme Court’s commitment to upholding the integrity of criminal proceedings by reinforcing the boundaries of revisional jurisdiction and ensuring that interlocutory orders are not subjected to frequent revision. The decision serves as a stern reminder to litigants and courts alike about the importance of following established legal procedures and the consequences of misuse.

Section 216., Code of Criminal Procedure - 1973  

Section 227., Code of Criminal Procedure - 1973  

Section 397., Code of Criminal Procedure - 1973  

Section 401., Code of Criminal Procedure - 1973  

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973