The Supreme Court expounded the limited scope of the High Court in revisional jurisdiction while dealing with interlocutory orders.
The SC Bench observed that the “scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. is extremely limited. Apart from the fact that subsection 2 of Section 397 prohibits the Court from exercising the powers of Revision, even the powers under sub-section 1 thereof should be exercised very sparingly”.
Brief Facts
The appeal arose from an FIR registered on November 24, 2009, at Dharmapuri Police Station under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 307 and 302 of IPC, 1860. Upon commencement of trial before the sessions court, Respondent No. 2 filed an application for discharge under section 227, CrPC, 1973; however, the same was dismissed firstly by the Session Court and subsequently in revision by the high court holding that there were sufficient incriminating materials against the Respondent No. 2 to proceed with. Thereafter, the Session Court framed charges under Section 302 r/w 149, 147, 148 and 324 of IPC, 1860 against Respondent No. 2 and the other accused. In consequence to the said framing of charge, Respondent No. 2 filed an application for alteration of charge under section 216, CrPC, on the ground that the accused no. 2 and others were not present at the scene of crime. The said application was dismissed by the Sessions Court; however, the High Court, in exercise of it’s revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 and 401, by an unusual impugned order discharged Respondent No. 2 from the charged levelled and ordered further investigation under section 173(8), though the Sessions Court already dismissed his earlier application for discharge and later confirmed by the High Court.
Issue
Whether the High Court’s decision to set aside the Session Court’s order for framing of charges against Respondent No. 2 and directing further investigation was correct as per Section 216, 397 and 401, CrPC, 1973.
Contentions of Appellant
The Appellant complainant argued that the High Court’s order to set aside the impugned order was incorrect. Appellant asserted that the High Court improperly exercised the powers under revisional jurisdiction in view of the express bar created by sub-section (2) of Section 397 CrPC. That is to say, since the impugned order dealt with the issue of alteration of charge under section 216, hence, it being of interlocutory nature, the revision application was not maintainable.
Contentions of Respondent
Respondent No. 2 claimed that the Sessions Court had erred in framing the charges since he was not present at the scene when the alleged offence was committed. Therefore, the High Court's order for the alteration of charges and further investigation was correct.
Observation of the Court
The Apex Court, after perusing the concerned provisions and applying the same to the factual matrix, observed that the High Court had erred in exercising revisional jurisdiction to set aside the framing of charges order. The Supreme Court remarked by reasoning that the High Court incorrectly interfered in the interlocutory order being barred under Section 397(2) CrPC.
The Supreme Court further enumerated that jurisdiction under revision should not be utilized to rectify orders relating to alteration of charge unless the decision is grossly erroneous or non-compliance with the provisions of law. The court further remarked that the High Court’s order was incorrect, contradictory to its previous order on discharge under section 227.
Regarding the above, the Supreme Court bench observed, “Thus, the scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. is extremely limited. Apart from the fact that subsection 2 of Section 397 prohibits the Court from exercising the powers of Revision, even the powers under sub-section 1 thereof should be exercised very sparingly and only where the decision under challenge is grossly erroneous, or there is non-compliance of the provisions of law, or the finding recorded by the trial court is based on no evidence, or material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely by framing the charge. The Court exercising Revisional Jurisdiction under Section 397 should be extremely circumspect in interfering with the order framing the charge, and could not have interfered with the order passed by the Trial Court dismissing the application for modification of the charge under Section 216 Cr.P.C., which order otherwise would fall in the category of an interlocutory order”
Applying the above-discussed law to facts, the SC bench enumerated that “The High Court, on an absolutely extraneous consideration and in utter disregard of the settled legal position, allowed the Revision Application filed by the Respondent No. 2, though legally untenable, and set aside the charge framed by the Sessions Court against the Respondent No. 2. The said order being ex facie illegal, untenable and dehors the material on record, the same deserves to be set aside.”
Decision
The SC Bench proceeded to set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court and allowed the appeal, restoring the Session Court’s order of framing the charges against Respondent No. 2. Furthermore, the court ordered the Session’s Court to proceed further with the trial as expeditiously as possible.
Case Title: K. Ravi v. State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.2029 of 2018
Court: Supreme Court of India
Coram: Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
Date: August 29, 2024
To Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com, Click Here
Picture Source :
