High Courts Should Not Exercise Section 482 CrPC Powers Suo Motu In A Sweeping Manner : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has observed that High Court cannot exercise power u/s 482 of CrPC, 1973 in a sweeping manner and beyond the contours of what is stipulated under the said Section.The bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna was considering a criminal appeal assailing Madras High Court's orders passed in 2019 by which the Single Judge had directed to transfer 864 cases in which the final reports have been filed before the concerned Special Courts for Land Grabbing Cases pending in various districts. The High Court had also directed the concerned Special Courts before whom the final reports were filed to return back the final reports filed by the concerned investigating officers of the respective police stations in order to enable filing of those final reports before the concerned jurisdictional Courts. The appeal was preferred by the High Court of Judicature at Madras through the Registrar General being in a quandary with regard to the implementation of the impugned orders though passed on the judicial side.While allowing the appeal, the bench said, "We observe that the High Courts ought to be mindful and conscious about the consequences of passing orders such as those impugned in these appeals. Though the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are wide and are in the nature of inherent power yet, the said power cannot be exercised suo motu in a sweeping manner and beyond the contours of what is stipulated under the said Section. We hope and trust that the High Courts would be more circumspect before passing such orders which are impugned and set aside in these appeals."Factual Background On July 28, 2011, the State had issued GO creating 36 Anti Land Grabbing Special Cells in the State of Tamil Nadu with one cell each at the State Police Headquarters, 7 Commissionerates and 28 Districts except Karur, Tiruvannamalai and Nagappattinam Districts. Consequently upon the GO, Special Courts were constituted exclusively to deal with Land Grabbing Cases. In writ petitions challenging the GO, the High Court while allowing the petitions set aside the GO's dated July 28, 2011 and August 11, 2011 on February 10, 2015. The High Court's order was challenged before the Supreme Court. On February 27, 2015, the Top Court while issuing notice stayed the High Court's order. Pursuant to the said interim order, the GO's were in operation and the jurisdiction of the Land Grabbing Cases was to be continued with the Special Cell/Special Courts.During the pendency of the SLP, S. Natarajan filed a Criminal O.P. before the High Court, seeking transfer of the case from the Special Court to the Court of CCB and CBCID, Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. On August 5, 2019, the High Court allowed/disposed the petition and directed the concerned police officials to take back the final report from the Special Court for Land Grabbing Cases No. II, Chennai and file the same before the CCB and CBCID, Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.Thereafter, on 'mentioning' made by the Additional Public Prosecutor in the disposed of matter, a further order dated August 27, 2019 was passed by the Single Judge of the High Court directing transfer of other 82 cases pending on the files of the Special Courts to the jurisdictional Courts. Again on a 'special mentioning' made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor in the disposed of matter being Criminal, the Single Judge by order dated August 29, 2019 directed transfer of 782 cases pending in the Special Courts to the jurisdictional Courts. Supreme Court's AnalysisThe Top Court noted that when orders dated August 27 & 29, 2019 were passed, no proceedings were pending before the learned Single Judge and that the Criminal OP was disposed of by order dated August 5, 2019. In this regards the bench said, "The learned Single Judge had become functus officio insofar as the aforesaid matter was concerned. From orders dated 27.08.2019 and 29.08.2019, it appears that the said orders are passed on the 'special mentioning' made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. How such orders transferring approximately 864 cases pending in different Special Courts in different districts to the concerned jurisdictional Courts could have been passed in a disposed of matter and more particularly when none of the parties to the cases which are ordered to be transferred were parties before the High Court? To pass such a type of order on a 'special mentioning' that too, in a disposed of matter is unheard of."While deprecating the practice of passing orders on "special mentioning" in a disposed of matter, the bench said, "Therefore, it is not understandable, how in a disposed of matter with respect to only one case, further orders could have been passed by the High Court transferring approximately 864 cases pending in different Special Courts in different districts, that too, on a 'special mentioning'. The procedure adopted by the learned Single Judge for passing orders...

High Courts Should Not Exercise Section 482 CrPC Powers Suo Motu In A Sweeping Manner : Supreme Court

Shruti Kakkar

Tags