TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (5) TMI 1080
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Appellant in N.C.R. No. 120/2012 Under Sections 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereinafter referred to as "IPC"], has been turned down. 3. A brief reference to the facts may be necessary for disposal of the present appeal. A complaint was lodged with the jurisdictional police by Respondent No. 2 (Kuldeep Mishra), who claimed to be a newspaper cor Respondent working for 'The Pioneer'. It was alleged that he had conducted a journalistic investigation for malpractices against one gas agency, namely 'Kalpana Indane Service'. He had also applied for certain information under the Right to Information Act 2005, so as to conduct investigation on alleged black marketing of gas cylinders by the aforesaid agency. The App....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the threatening given by Sanjay Rai. It is apparent that there is material change in the statement of the Respondent - complainant wherein he introduced Mohd. Sharif Khan and Umesh Kumar Bhatt as witnesses for the call made by the Appellant herein. 6. In any case, on 21.07.2012 a charge sheet came to be filed against the Appellant/Accused Under Sections 504 and 506 Indian Penal Code based on the statement of complainant and the affidavits of two witnesses. It may not be out of context to mention here that the Investigating Officer did not deem it necessary to take the version of the Appellant on record or consider his side of story also. 7. The CJM took cognizance of the matter on 08.11.2012. However, well before for framing of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lant aggrieved by the aforesaid order approached the High Court through a Criminal Revision Petition, seeking reversal of CJM's order. The High Court relying on the judgment of this Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2018) 16 SCC 299 observed that interference in the order framing charges or refusing to discharge is called for in rarest of rare case only to correct the patent error of jurisdiction. Finding no such jurisdictional error in CJM's order the Criminal Revision Petition was dismissed. 9. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid impugned order, the Appellant-Accused has approached this Court through Special Leave Petition. CONTENTIONS: 10. Learned Counsel for the Appellan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Procedure. ANALYSIS: 12. At the outset, we may note that the High Court has dismissed the Criminal Revision on the ground of lack of jurisdiction Under Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court did not examine the issue in detail to find out whether the continuation of proceedings will amount to abuse of process of law in this case. The impugned order cites the decision of this Court in Asian Resurfacing (supra) wherein it was noted as under: ...Thus, we declare the law to be that order framing charge is not purely an interlocutory order nor a final order. Jurisdiction of the High Court is not barred irrespective of the label of a petition, be it Under Sections 397 or 482 Code of Criminal Procedure or Article....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er Section 397(2) or even Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, the principle laid down in Madhu Limaye [Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 4 SCC 551 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 10] still holds the field. Order framing charge may not be held to be purely an interlocutory order and can in a given situation be interfered with Under Section 397(2) Code of Criminal Procedure or 482 Code of Criminal Procedure or Article 227 of the Constitution which is a constitutional provision but the power of the High Court to interfere with an order framing charge and to grant stay is to be exercised only in a exceptional situation. (emphasis supplied) 14. In Madhu Limaye (supra), this Court authoritatively held: 9... Sometimes the revi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or to secure ends of justice having regard to the facts and circumstance of individual cases. As a caveat it may be stated that the High Court, while exercising its afore-stated jurisdiction ought to be circumspect. The discretion vested in the High Court is to be invoked carefully and judiciously for effective and timely administration of criminal justice system. This Court, nonetheless, does not recommend a complete hands off approach. Albeit, there should be interference, may be, in exceptional cases, failing which there is likelihood of serious prejudice to the rights of a citizen. For example, when the contents of a complaint or the other purported material on record is a brazen attempt to persecute an innocent person, it becomes imper....