Connected writ challenge to criminal proceedings must return to the appropriate Division Bench for fresh consideration.

Where a second-round writ challenge to criminal proceedings follows withdrawal of an earlier special leave petition with liberty to refile, the matter should be placed before the same category of Bench that earlier dealt with the controversy. The Supreme Court held that a Single Judge should not bypass the earlier Division Bench trajectory in such connected proceedings. It therefore set aside the quashing order, remitted the writ petitions for fresh consideration by an appropriate Division Bench, and left the merits open for independent adjudication. Interim protection was continued only for a limited period.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the second-round writ petitions, filed after withdrawal of the earlier special leave petition with liberty to file afresh, ought to have been placed before and heard by a Division Bench of the High Court. (ii) Whether the order quashing the criminal proceedings could be sustained, or the matter required remand for fresh consideration by the appropriate Bench.

Issue (i): Whether the second-round writ petitions, filed after withdrawal of the earlier special leave petition with liberty to file afresh, ought to have been placed before and heard by a Division Bench of the High Court.

Analysis: The earlier round had already been entertained and decided by a Division Bench, which had declined to quash the proceedings. After withdrawal of the special leave petition with liberty to approach the High Court again, the second-round petitions arose out of the same criminal proceedings and raised substantially connected issues. In that setting, the proper course was for the matter to be listed before a Division Bench, and not to proceed before a Single Judge in a manner that bypassed the earlier jurisdictional trajectory.

Conclusion: The matter ought to have been heard by a Division Bench.

Issue (ii): Whether the order quashing the criminal proceedings could be sustained, or the matter required remand for fresh consideration by the appropriate Bench.

Analysis: The Single Judge had quashed the proceedings on the view that continuation would amount to abuse of process and that inherent jurisdiction could be exercised to secure the ends of justice. The Supreme Court, however, refrained from examining the merits of that conclusion and held that the controversy had to be independently decided by a Division Bench. The impugned order was therefore not allowed to stand, and the matter was remitted so that the High Court could decide the writ petitions afresh on their own merits without being influenced by prior observations.

Conclusion: The quashing order was set aside and the matter was remanded for decision by a Division Bench.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the impugned order was vacated, and the High Court was directed to reconsider the writ petitions afresh through an appropriate Division Bench, with interim protection for a limited period.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a connected challenge to criminal proceedings has already travelled through a Division Bench in an earlier round, a later round after withdrawal with liberty should be placed before the appropriate Division Bench for independent adjudication, and any merits-based quashing order passed in such a posture may be set aside and remitted for fresh consideration.

---