Trial Court Must Reconsider Charges Independently, Uninfluenced by Revisional Court’s Merits Observations

A police team from Police Station Kanksa, District Burdwan, West Bengal, accompanied by local police personnel from Police Station Model Town, Delhi, came to the petitioner’s residence at approximately 5:50 a.m. to arrest Sanjay Gupta, who was wanted in connection with three FIRs.

During the ensuing commotion, Sanjay Gupta allegedly escaped, following which a case was registered against the occupants of the house, including Vijay Kumar Gupta, for obstructing public servants in the discharge of their duties.

The Trial Court discharged all five accused on 20 June 2015, holding that SI Sujeet Kumar lacked the requisite authorisation to conduct the raid and arrest Sanjay Gupta.

The prosecution challenged the discharge.

The Revisional Court allowed the revision and remanded the matter for rehearing on the question of charge, while observing that charges under the appropriate provisions should be framed, but also clarified that its observations would not amount to an opinion on the merits.

The petitioner, aged about 75 years, approached the High Court, contending that the police action was unauthorised and that there had been no obstruction.

Whether the Revisional Court’s observations regarding the alleged obstruction and framing of charges could prejudice the Trial Court while rehearing the question of charge.

Whether the High Court should adjudicate at the revision stage the petitioner’s contentions that the police action was unauthorised and that no obstruction had occurred, when the Trial Court was seized of the matter.

Whether the matter should be remitted to the Trial Court for an independent and legally compliant decision on the question of charge.

The Court applied the procedural principle that, upon remand for rehearing on the question of charge, the Trial Court must independently consider the material and applicable law and cannot be bound by observations that do not constitute a final determination on merits.

A revisional court’s remand order must be understood according to its operative directions; where the matter is remanded for rehearing and the revisional court expressly states that its observations are not an expression of opinion on merits, such observations cannot predetermine the Trial Court’s decision.

The Court also applied the principle that issues which remain within the jurisdiction of the Trial Court should ordinarily be urged before that court in the first instance.

The petitioner relied on Sandeep Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2019 SCC OnLine Del 11901, but the High Court did not decide its applicability because the Trial Court was already seized of the matter.

The High Court noted that the Revisional Court had ultimately remanded the case for rehearing on the point of charge and had expressly clarified that its observations would not amount to a determination on merits.

Accordingly, the Revisional Court’s observation that charges would be framed under appropriate provisions was treated as superfluous and incapable of controlling the Trial Court’s independent assessment.

Since the Trial Court had not yet decided the matter, the High Court declined to determine whether the police action was unauthorised or whether the petitioner had obstructed the police, leaving those contentions open for consideration at the stage of charge.

Given that the alleged incident dated back to 2010 and that one accused was in his seventies, the Court emphasised the need for expeditious adjudication without compromising the requirement that the matter be decided strictly in accordance with law.

All rights and contentions of the parties were left open, and the petitioner was permitted to pursue any legally available remedy against a subsequent order of the Trial Court.

A copy of the judgment was directed to be sent to the Trial Court for information and compliance.