Full Judgment Text
1
REPORTABLE
N HE UPREME OURT OF NDIA
I T S C I
C RIMINAL A PPELLATE J URISDICTION
C RIMINAL A PPEAL N O . 30 OF 2019
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 1740 of 2015)
C HANDER B HAN S INGH … A PPELLANT ( S )
V ERSUS
ENTRAL UREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND THERS ESPONDENT S
C B O … R ( )
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. This criminal appeal was filed against the impugned order dated
28.10.2014, passed by the High Court of Delhi, wherein the said Court had
dismissed the Revision Petition against the order rejecting the cognizance,
by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.
3. It may be relevant to note the chequered history of this case
spanning almost sixteen years. On 17.01.2002, the
Appellant/Complainant filed a Criminal Writ Petition No. 70/2002,
before the Delhi High Court against the State, Deputy Commissioner
of Police and others seeking registration of a criminal complaint. The
Appellant/Complainant alleged that his son had been wrongfully killed
Signature Not Verified
by the police on 11.01.2002. The High Court of Delhi,
Digitally signed by
VISHAL ANAND
Date: 2019.01.11
16:54:23 IST
Reason:
vide order dated 30.01.2002, directed the Central Bureau of
Investigation ( “CBI” ) to register a complaint and investigate. CBI
2
registered a complaint being RC No. 2(s)/2002/SICIV/ND under
Sections 218, 302, 201 read with 34 of IPC.
4. The CBI, after completion of investigation, filed a Closure Report
under Section 173, Cr.P.C. on the ground that the Lt. Governor, NCT
Delhi did not find it to be a fit case to convey sanction for prosecution.
The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, by order dated 06.08.2008,
did not accept the Closure Report filed by the CBI, and on considering
the material before it, took cognizance against thirteen police officers
(“ ”). The accused were summoned, and the matter was
accused
committed to the Court of Sessions.
5. Meanwhile, one of the accused filed Criminal Revision Petition
No. 8 of 2009 challenging the order dated 06.08.2008, passed by the
Magistrate, before the Additional Sessions Judge. The Criminal
Revision Petition was dismissed vide order dated 14.05.2009.
Thereafter, the accused, as well as the Government of NCT Delhi, filed
separate petitions under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code before
the Delhi High Court against the order dated 06.08.2008 of the
Magistrate and the order dated 14.05.2009 passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge in the Criminal Revision Petition. By a common
judgment dated 22.09.2011, the High Court allowed the above
petitions, and directed the Magistrate to reconsider the point of
3
cognizance and to take a fresh decision on the Closure Report filed by
the CBI.
6. The Appellant/Complainant challenged the above decision of the
Delhi High Court through Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8790 of
2012 before this Court, wherein the petition was dismissed vide order
dated 12.12.2011 and upheld the order of the High Court with a
direction to the Magistrate to decide the matter expeditiously.
7. The Magistrate reheard all the parties and by order dated
24.05.2012 accepted the Closure Report of the CBI. The
Appellant/Complainant challenged the order before the High Court of
Delhi by way of a Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397, Cr.P.C
on 12.09.2012. After keeping the aforesaid matter pending for more
than two years, the High Court, by order dated 28.10.2014, dismissed
the petition of the Appellant/Complainant, with liberty to approach
the Sessions Judge. The High Court, observed as follows:
“…this Court had noted that since the order had
been passed by the Magistrate, the next hierarchal
Court is the Sessions Judge and although
admittedly there are concurrent powers vested
with both the Courts i.e. the High Court and the
Sessions Court to entertain a revision petition but
there being no special circumstance to bypass the
forum of the Sessions Judge, this Court is of the
view that it would be appropriate if the
petitioner first approaches the lower forum i.e.
the Sessions Court and unless and until there is
4
an exceptional circumstance, he may approach
the High Court only thereafter .”
( Emphasis supplied )
8. Initially, when this matter was placed before this Court, learned
senior counsels appearing on behalf of the parties had argued at
length and had taken us through various legal provisions and case
laws pertaining to the issue of concurrent revisionary jurisdiction
under the new Code. Moreover, the learned counsels had also sought
a reference to a larger bench to, once and for all, decide and settle the
question regarding choice of jurisdiction under Section 397 of Cr.P.C.
9.
Having considered the fact that this case had taken place as long
back as in the year 2002 and almost sixteen years have elapsed, and
that it is ingrained in our criminal justice system that we seek to
provide speedy justice as a matter of a constitutional right, we do not
consider this case to be an appropriate one to decide on the question
of law considering the peculiar facts and circumstances involved.
10. Having said so, we leave the question of law open, set aside the
order of the High Court dated 28.10.2014, in Criminal revision
petition No. 557 of 2012 and restore the case before the High Court.
Further, we request the aforesaid Court to hear the matter on merits
and pass an appropriate order thereafter without any further delay. If
any party is aggrieved with the order passed by the High Court, we
5
grant liberty to them to approach this Court again.
11. Before parting with the matter, we make it clear that we have not
expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the High Court is
requested to consider all the points involved in the matter
independently and in accordance with law.
12. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
……….…………………………..J
( N.V. R AMANA )
….……………………………….J
(MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR)
JANUARY 08, 2019.
NEW DELHI.
6
ITEM NO.8 COURT NO.4 SECTION II-C
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 1740/2015
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 28-10-2014
in CRLRP No. 557/2012 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New
Delhi)
CHANDER BHAN SINGH Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ORS. Respondent(s)
(IA 3663/2015-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
AND IA 4741/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE ANNEXURES)
Date : 08-01-2019 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
For Petitioner(s)
Mr. K.K. Rai, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath, Adv.
Mr. Chandrashekhar A. Chakalabbi, Adv.
Mr. S.K. Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Anshul Rai, Adv.
Mr. Mukesh Hooda, Adv.
Mr. Rajiv Choudhary, Adv.
Mr. Onkar Nath, Adv.
Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR
For Respondent(s)
Mr. Pramod Dubey, Adv.
Mr. Vivek Jain, AOR
Ms. Suchitra Kumbhat, Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. P.K. Dubey, Adv.
Ms. Smriti Sinha, Adv.
Ms. Supriya Juneja, AOR
Mr. Aditya Singla, Adv.
Ms. Varsha Poddar, Adv.
Ms. M. Jaggi, Adv.
Mr. Anoopam Prasad, Adv.
Mr. Gautam Narayan, AOR
Ms. Asmita Singh, Adv.
7
Mr. Santosh Kumar, Adv.
-2-
Mr. P.K. Dey, Adv.
Mr. Rishabh Jain, Adv.
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR
Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Sr. Adv.
Mrs. Priya Puri, AOR
Mr. Ranjay Dubey, Adv.
Ms. Vineeta M., Adv.
Ms. Ranjana Narayan, Adv.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Adv.
Mr. B. V. Balaram Das, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The Appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed Reportable
order .
Pending applications filed in the matter also stand disposed
of.
(VISHAL ANAND) (RAJ RANI NEGI)
COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed Reportable Order is placed on the file)