The Supreme Court has set aside an Allahabad High Court order that dismissed as "infructuous" a petition seeking the quashing of criminal proceedings after the filing of a charge sheet.

The Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masiah criticized the High Court’s approach and restored the writ petition, directing its hearing on January 6, 2025.

"As merits of petition for quashing have not been gone into, we set aside the impugned order and restore the Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 5221 of 2022. The restored writ petition shall be listed before the Roster Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on 6th January, 2025, when parties who are present today shall appear without waiting for the service of notice," the Court ordered.

The Court expressed shock at the High Court's dismissal of the petition without considering its merits. The Bench observed, "We are surprised to note that without considering the case of the appellants on merits, the petition has been dismissed as infructuous. We fail to understand how a petition for quashing criminal proceedings becomes infructuous on the ground of filing of a chargesheet. Only on this ground itself, the impugned order deserves to be set aside."

It emphasized that a petition for quashing under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code or Article 226 of the Constitution allows broader grounds for challenge, including allegations of abuse of process, which are not available in discharge applications.

AoR Kisalaya Shukla appeared for the petitioner, and AoR Vijendra Singh appeared for the State of UP.

The appellants had approached the Allahabad High Court seeking to quash an FIR lodged under Sections 420, 467, 468, 470, 477, 448, 427, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at the instance of the fourth respondent. However, the High Court dismissed the petition through a one-line order dated May 8, 2024, citing the filing of a charge sheet as the reason for dismissing the matter as infructuous.

The State of Uttar Pradesh argued that the appellants could pursue alternative remedies, including filing for discharge or revision against the order of framing charges. However, the Court dismissed this submission, noting, "It is true that the appellants can apply for discharge. However, the scope of the application for discharge is completely different from the scope of a petition for quashing the criminal proceedings. While arguing a case for discharge, the appellants will not be in a position to rely upon any document that is not the part of charge sheet. The ground of abuse of process of law will not be available while arguing discharge application. However, in a petition for quashing either under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a wider challenge is available, including a challenge on the ground of abuse of process of law."

"In such proceedings, the accused can rely upon documents which are not part of the charge-sheet. Therefore, we reject the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the State. Though the submissions made on behalf of the State have no basis, we have dealt with the same elaborately to ensure that the same are not urged in a similar case," the Court added.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal, ensuring that all contentions are left open for adjudication by the High Court. Further, all the pending applications related to the appeal were disposed of.

Cause Title: Mukesh & Ors. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.12354/2024]

Appearance:-

Petitioner: Advocates Raghvendra Upadhyay, Purnima Jain, Vaibhav Tripathi, Awadhesh Kumar, Chandra Kishore Yadav, Kisalaya Shukla (AoR)

Respondent: Advocates Vijendra Singh (AoR), Preeti Goel, Abhinav Rathi, Apurva Singh

Click here to read/download the Order


Justice Abhay S OkaJustice Augustine George Masih

Sukriti Mishra