Naveen Kaushik vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Dipak Misra, C.J.—Being grieved by the order dated 9.1.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(Crl.) No. 177/2010 whereby the learned Single Judge has expressed the view that when framing of charge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is interlocutory, the summoning order cannot be considered as a final order to enable the accused to approach the Court for quashment of the same.

Though maintenance of Letters Patent Appeal against the order passed in a criminal writ has been raised yet we have thought it apposite to deal with the controversy without entering into the issue of maintainability.

At the very outset, we may produce the order passed by the learned Single Judge:

This petition has been preferred by the Petitioner for quashing of FIR, quashing of summoning order and quashing of chargesheet. The accused/ Petitioner is charged for various offences under IPC and under Prevention of Corruption Act.

The Legislature in order to curb the tendency of approaching High Court at the stage of charge, the moment charge was framed amended the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act so that the trial of cases under Prevention of Corruption Act was not hampered and stalled by obtaining stays of proceedings before the trial courts. That does not mean that the Legislature or the Courts intended to give liberty to the accused to approach High Court just before framing of charge, when chargesheet is filed and accused is summoned. This is contrary to the intention of the Legislature. Entertaining such petitions defeats the very purpose of amendment made in Prevention of Corruption Act. The Supreme Court has repeatedly laid down that under Prevention of Corruption Act order of framing charge was an interlocutory order. When framing charge was an interlocutory order, how can summoning order be considered as a final order giving liberty to approach this Court with such like petitions. I find no force in this petition. The petition is hereby dismissed being not maintainable.

On a perusal of the same, it is manifest that the learned Single Judge has opined that the writ petition is not maintainable. A Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(Crl.) No. 80/2010 (Shri Arun Kumar Jain v. Central Bureau of Investigation) and other connected matters while dealing with a reference as regard to the maintainability of a petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has answered thus:

In view of our aforesaid discussion, we proceed to answer the reference on following terms:

(a) An order framing charge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is an interlocutory order.

(b) As Section 19(3)(c) clearly bars revision against an interlocutory order and framing of charge being an interlocutory order a revision will not be maintainable.

(c) A petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and a writ petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are maintainable.

(d) Even if a petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is entertained by the High Court under no circumstances an order of stay should be passed regard being had to the prohibition contained in Section 19(3)(c) of the 1988 Act.

(e) The exercise of power either u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should be sparingly and in exceptional circumstances be exercised keeping in view the law laid down in Siya Ram Singh (supra), Vishesh Kumar (supra), Khalil Ahmed Bashir Ahmed (supra), Kamal Nath and Ors. (supra) Ranjeet Singh (supra) and similar line of decisions in the field.

(f) It is settled law that jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised as a "cloak of an appeal in disguise" or to re-appreciate evidence. The aforesaid proceedings should be used sparingly with great care, caution, circumspection and only to prevent grave miscarriage of justice.

Reference is answered accordingly. The writ petitions be listed before the appropriate Bench.

Keeping in view the aforesaid conclusions, the order passed by the learned Single Judge has to be set aside and accordingly it is so ordered. The matter is remitted to the file of the learned Single Judge to be dealt with regard being had to the reference answered in W.P.(Crl.) No. 80/2010 (Shri Arun Kumar Jain v. Central Bureau of Investigation) and other connected matters. There shall be no order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE MARCH 30, 2011 SANJIV KHANNA, J. Sv/dk