CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION versus ARYAN SINGH ETC. on 10 April 2023

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned commonjudgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana atChandigarh in Criminal Misc. Application Nos. 54107 of 2021 and 8233of 2022 by which the High Court, in exercise of the powers under Section482 Cr.P.C., has quashed the criminal proceedings of the FIR No.CRC0512020S0001 dated 29.04.2020 registered at Police Station StateGrime Branch, Chandigarh under Sections 452, 323, 365, 342, 186, 225,506 and 120-B IPC (earlier registered as FIR No.195 dated 30.08.2014under Sections 452, 323, 365, 342, 225, 186, 506, 120-B IPC at PoliceStation Phase-1, Mohali) as well as all the subsequent proceedings arisingDout of the same, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has preferredthe present appeals.

2. Shri K.M. Nataraj, learned ASG appearing on behalf of theCBI has vehemently submitted that pursuant to the directions issued bythe Hon’ble High Court, investigation of the aforesaid was handed overEto the CBI, pursuant to which the FIR in question was registered on29.04.2020 at Police Station, Crime Branch, Chandigarh for the aforesaidoffences.

2.1 It is submitted that initially, the accused Aryan Singh was notnamed in the fresh FIR. However, thereafter, after conclusion of theFinvestigation, the chargesheet came to be filed against the said AryanSingh also and he has been included as one of the accused.

2.2 It is submitted that thereafter both the accused Aryan Singhand Gautam Cheema filed discharge applications before the learned TrialCourt, which came to be dismissed on merits. It is submitted thatthereafter by the impugned judgment and order, in exercise of the powersGunder Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court has quashed the entire criminalproceedings, as if, the High Court was conducting a mini trial.

2.3 It is vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstancesof the case, the High Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction while quashingthe entire criminal proceedings against the accused Aryan Singh andH

Gautam Cheema. It is vehemently submitted that while quashing thecriminal proceedings, the High Court has observed that the allegations /charges against the accused have not been proved and that theprosecution is malicious. It is submitted that at the stage of deciding thequashing petitions against the order passed by the learned Trial Court,refusing to discharge the accused, the High Court ought not to haveconsidered and/or observed that the charges are not proved. It issubmitted that the charges are required to be proved during the trial andon the basis of the evidence led. It is further submitted that even theHigh Court has materially erred in observing that the prosecution ismalicious. It is submitted that the investigation was handed over to theCBI, pursuant to the directions issued by the High Court and, thereafter,after conclusion of the investigation, the accused came to bechargesheeted and therefore, the initiation of the criminal proceedings /proceedings cannot be said to be malicious. It is submitted that whetherany criminal proceedings is malicious, is also required to be consideredat the conclusion of the trial and not at this stage, namely, at the stage ofexercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

2.4 Number of submissions have been made on merits also byShri Nataraj, learned ASG, however, for the reasons stated hereinabove,we are inclined to set aside the impugned common judgment and orderpassed by the High Court by relegating the accused to face the trial andthereafter the trial is to proceed against the accused, we are notconsidering the submissions made on behalf of the CBI as well as onbehalf of the accused on merits.

3. Present appeals are vehemently opposed by Shri R.P. Bhatt,learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the accused Aryan Singhand Shri Mahesh Jethmalani, learned senior counsel appearing on behalfof the accused Gautam Cheema.

3.1 Both the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respectiveaccused have made submissions on merits of the allegations made againsteach accused. However, all those submissions are the defences, whichare required to be considered during the trial. Therefore, we are notelaborately dealing with and/or considering the submissions made onbehalf of the CBI as well as the accused on merits on the allegationsagainst the accused as any observation of this Court may affect eitherof the parties during the trial.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A4. Having gone through the impugned common judgment and orderpassed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings anddischarging the accused, we are of the opinion that the High Court hasexceeded in its jurisdiction in quashing the entire criminal proceedings inexercise of the limited powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or in exerciseof the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.B

A

4.1 From the impugned common judgment and order passed bythe High Court, it appears that the High Court has dealt with theproceedings before it, as if, the High Court was conducting a mini trialand/or the High Court was considering the applications against thejudgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court on conclusion ofCtrial. As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powersunder Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court is not required to conduct the minitrial. The High Court in the common impugned judgment and order hasobserved that the charges against the accused are not proved. This isDnot the stage where the prosecution / investigating agency is/are requiredto prove the charges. The charges are required to be proved during thetrial on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution / investigatingagency. Therefore, the High Court has materially erred in going in detailin the allegations and the material collected during the course of theinvestigation against the accused, at this stage. At the stage of dischargeEand/or while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Courthas a very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider “whether anysufficient material is available to proceed further against the accusedfor which the accused is required to be tried or not”.

4.2 One another reason pointed by the High Court is that theFinitiation of the criminal proceedings / proceedings is malicious. At thisstage, it is required to be noted that the investigation was handed over tothe CBI pursuant to the directions issued by the High Court. Thatthereafter, on conclusion of the investigation, the accused persons havebeen chargesheeted. Therefore, the High Court has erred in observingat this stage that the initiation of the criminal proceedings / proceedingsGis malicious. Whether the criminal proceedings was/were malicious ornot, is not required to be considered at this stage. The same is requiredto be considered at the conclusion of the trial. In any case, at this stage,what is required to be considered is a prima facie case and the materialcollected during the course of the investigation, which warranted theHaccused to be tried.

5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, whenthe High Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction in quashing the entirecriminal proceedings and applying the law laid down by this Court incatena of decisions on exercise of the powers at the stage of dischargeand/or quashing the criminal proceedings, the impugned common judgmentand order passed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedingsagainst the accused is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashedand set aside.

5.1 In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, presentappeals succeed. The impugned common judgment and order passed bythe High Court quashing and setting aside the criminal proceedings againstthe accused Aryan Singh and Gautam Cheema is/are quashed and setaside. The accused to face the trial for which they are chargesheeted.However, it is observed that all the contentions and defences, which areavailable to the respective parties are kept open, to be considered by thelearned Trial Court during the trial.

Considering the fact that the allegations in the FIR relates back tothe year 2014 and as more than eight years have passed, we direct thelearned Trial Court to conclude the trial at the earliest, but not later than12 months from the date of the receipt of the present order. CBI toproduce the present order before the concerned Magistrate at the earliest.All concerned are directed to cooperate with the learned Trial Court inconcluding the trial within the time prescribed mentioned hereinabove.

Present appeals are allowed accordingly.

Nidhi Jain

Appeals allowed.

(Assisted by : Abhishek Agnihotri, LCRA)

A

B

C

DE

F

G

H