Case details

Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided: 23 February 2022
Bench: M.R. Shah, B.V. Nagarathna
Citations: 2022 INSC 228[2022] 1 S.C.R. 715
Type: Judgment (Appeal(s) allowed)

Actions & My Vault

Save to My Vault

Ask Compass

Court copy / source

Citation: [2022] 1 S.C.R. 715 (search it on the Supreme Court's e-SCR portal)

Supreme Court of India

REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS versus THE STATE, REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH, CHENNAI & ANOTHER on 23 February 2022

Cites 0, Cited by 0

[2022] 1 S.C.R. 715

REGISTRAR GENERAL,HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

THE STATE, REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH, CHENNAI & ANOTHER

(Criminal Appeal Nos. 272-274 of 2022)

FEBRUARY 23, 2022

[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]

Land Grabbing: Transfer of 864 cases pending in civil courtsto the jurisdictional courts – Original complainant in case pendingon the file of the Special Court for Land Grabbing Cases, filedpetition before the High Court, seeking transfer of the said casefrom the Special Court to the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate –Allowed/disposed of, by the High Court – Thereafter, on ‘mentioning’made by the Additional Public Prosecutor in the said disposed ofpetition, the Single Judge of the High Court directed transfer of 82and 782 cases/final reports filed respectively, pending on the filesof the Special Courts to the jurisdictional Courts – In the said orders,no proceedings were pending before the Single Judge, and none ofthe parties to the cases ordered to be transferred were parties beforethe High Court – Sustainability of – Held: Not sustainable – It cannotbe understood, how in a disposed of matter with respect to only onecase, further orders could have been passed by the High Courttransferring approximately 864 cases pending in different SpecialCourts in different districts, to the concerned jurisdictional Courtsthat too, on a ‘special mentioning’ – Said procedure adopted by theSingle Judge is unknown to law – Practice of passing such orderson a ‘special mentioning’ that too, in a disposed of matter isdeprecated – Impugned judgment and orders passed by the SingleJudge of the High Court directing transfer of 864 cases from theSpecial Courts to the jurisdictional Magistrates, being whollywithout jurisdiction, are quashed and set aside – However, wouldbe subject to the decision of this Court in the pending proceedingsagainst the order by the High Court quashing the Government Ordercreating Anti Land Grabbing Special Cells, which was stayed bythis Court, whereby the jurisdiction of the Special Courts to dealwith the Land Grabbing Cases continues – Judicial deprecation.

715

CDEF

ACode of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 482 – Power of HighCourts under – Held: Though the powers of the High Court u/s.482 are wide and are in the nature of inherent power yet, the saidpower cannot be exercised suo motu in a sweeping manner andbeyond the contours of what is stipulated under the said Section –High Courts need to be more circumspect before passing suchBorders.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal AppealNos. 272-274 of 2022.

From the Judgment and Order dated 05.08.2019, 27.08.2019 andC29.08.2019 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Crl. OPNo.20889 of 2019.

V. Krishnamurthy, AAG, R. Shunmugasundaram, Adv. General,Dr. Ram Sankar, K. Elangovan, L.

Sivakumar, Sharu Kumar, Suvethan, Ms. Sujatha Bagadhi, Ms.DShaarumathi, Yusuf, B. Balaji, Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., Ms. Preeti Singh,Ms. Nupur Sharma, Sanjeev Kumar Mahara, S. Thananjayan, Ms. AainaVerma, Ms. Jaswanthi Anbuselvam, Ms. Promila, K. S. Mahadevan,Rangarajan, Ms. Swati Bansal, Rajesh Kumar, E. C. Agrawala, T. R. B.Sivakumar, B. Sridhar, Venkateswara Rao Anumolu, S. Gowthaman, R.ENedumaran, K. V. Jagdishvaran, Ms. N. P. Haibila, Ms. G. Indira, AnishR. Shah, M. P. Srivignesh, Mithunkumaar N., Jose Abraham, Advs. forthe appearing parties.

The following Order of the Court was passed :

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

Cited by

Decisions in the index citing it

Cites

Decisions referred to

In this index

Of the decisions it cites

Overruled / Questioned

No negative treatment found

Loading the citing and cited decisions…

ORDER

1. Application for permission to file the special leave petitions isallowed. Delay in filing the special leave petitions is condoned.

1a. Leave granted.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned finalGjudgment and orders dated 05.08.2019, 27.08.2019 and 29.08.2019 passedby the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal O.P. No. 20889/2019, by which the learned Single Judge of the High Court has directedto transfer 864 cases in which the final reports have been filed beforethe concerned Special Courts for Land Grabbing Cases pending in variousdistricts and has directed the concerned Special Courts before whomH

the final reports are filed to return back the final reports filed by theconcerned investigating officers of the respective police stations in orderto enable those final reports to be filed before the concerned jurisdictionalCourts, the High Court of Judicature at Madras through the RegistrarGeneral has preferred the present appeals, being in a quandry with regardto the implementation of the impugned orders though passed on the judicialside.

3. The facts leading to the present appeals in a nutshell are asunder:

That the State of Tamil Nadu issued G.O. (Ms) No. 423 dated28.07.2011 creating 36 Anti Land Grabbing Special Cells in the State ofTamil Nadu with one cell each at the State Police Headquarters, 7Commissionerates and 28 Districts except Karur, Tiruvannamalai andNagappattinam Districts. That consequent upon G.O. (Ms) No. 423 dated28.07.2011, Special Courts were constituted exclusively to deal with LandGrabbing Cases. That the aforesaid G.O. was the subject matter ofcontroversy before the High Court.

3.1 By a common judgment and order dated 10.02.2015 passed inWrit Petition No. 18872/2014 and other allied writ petitions, the HighCourt has set aside G.O (Ms) No. 423 dated 28.07.2011 and G.O.(Ms)No. 451, Home (Court III) Department dated 11.08.2011. While allowingthose writ petitions, the High Court has also observed that the StateGovernment is at liberty to enact any appropriate legislation on the linesof A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 or better legislations. Thecommon judgment and order dated 10.02.2015 passed in Writ PetitionNo. 18872/2014 and other allied writ petitions is the subject matter beforethis Court by way of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 6050-6078 of2015.

3.2 That by order dated 27.02.2015, this Court, while issuing noticein the aforesaid special leave petitions, stayed the operation andimplementation of the judgment and order dated 10.02.2015 passed bythe High Court. Meaning thereby, pursuant to the said interim order, theaforesaid G.O. No. 423 dated 28.07.2011 and G.O. No. 451 dated11.08.2011 are in operation and the jurisdiction of the Land GrabbingCases is to be continued with the Special Cell/Special Courts.

3.3 That, during the pendency of the aforesaid special leavepetitions, one, S. Natarajan, original complainant in Crime No. 434/2015

Apending on the file of the Special Court for Land Grabbing Cases No. II,Chennai, filed Criminal O.P. No. 20889/2019 before the High Court,seeking transfer of the said case from the Special Court to the Court ofCCB and CBCID, Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. By orderdated 05.08.2019, the learned Single Judge of the High Court has allowed/disposed of the said petition and has directed the concerned police officialsBto take back the final report from the Special Court for Land GrabbingCases No. II, Chennai and to file the same before the CCB and CBCID,Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.

3.4 That thereafter, on ‘mentioning’ made by the learned AdditionalPublic Prosecutor in the disposed of matter, being the aforesaid CriminalCO.P. No. 20889/2019, disposed of vide order dated 05.08.2019, a furtherorder dated 27.08.2019 came to be passed by the learned Single Judgeof the High Court directing transfer of other 82 cases pending on thefiles of the Special Courts to the jurisdictional Courts. That thereafter,again on a ‘special mentioning’ made by the learned Additional PublicDProsecutor in the disposed of matter being Criminal O.P. No. 20889/2019, the learned Single Judge by order dated 29.08.2019 has directedtransfer of 782 cases pending in the Special Courts to the jurisdictionalCourts. Orders dated 05.08.2019, 27.08.2019 and 29.08.2019 are thesubject matter of the present appeals.

E4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of theHigh Court. By the impugned orders, the learned Single Judge of theHigh Court has directed transfer of the cases/final reports filed/pendingin the Special Courts exclusively to deal with the Land Grabbing Casesto the respective jurisdictional Courts. It is to be noted that when thelearned Single Judge passed orders dated 27.08.2019 and 29.08.2019,Fno proceedings were pending before the learned Single Judge. The originalCriminal O.P. No. 20889/2019 was already disposed of by the learnedSingle Judge vide order dated 05.08.2019. The learned Single Judge hadbecome functus officio insofar as the aforesaid matter was concerned.From orders dated 27.08.2019 and 29.08.2019, it appears that the saidGorders are passed on the ‘special mentioning’ made by the learnedAdditional Public Prosecutor. How such orders transferring approximately864 cases pending in different Special Courts in different districts to theconcerned jurisdictional Courts could have been passed in a disposed ofmatter and more particularly when none of the parties to the cases whichare ordered to be transferred were parties before the High Court? ToH

pass such type of orders on a ‘special mentioning’ that too, in a disposedof matter is unheard of. It is required to be noted that the main CriminalO.P. No. 20889/2019 was with respect to only one case, being CrimeNo. 434/2015 on the file of the Special Court for Land Grabbing CasesNo. II, Chennai and it was not a Public Interest Litigation (PIL).Therefore, it is not understandable, how in a disposed of matter withrespect to only one case, further orders could have been passed by theHigh Court transferring approximately 864 cases pending in differentSpecial Courts in different districts, that too, on a ‘special mentioning’.The procedure adopted by the learned Single Judge for passing ordersdated 27.08.2019 and 29.08.2019 directing to transfer 864 cases fromthe Special Courts in different districts to the concerned jurisdictionalCourts is unknown to law. The practice of passing such orders on a‘special mentioning’ that too, in a disposed of matter is to be deprecated.Therefore, under the circumstances, orders dated 27.08.2019 and29.08.2019 being wholly without jurisdiction, are unsustainable anddeserve to be quashed and set aside.

5. Even otherwise on merits also, orders dated 05.08.2019,27.08.2019 and 29.08.2019 transferring the cases/final reports from theconcerned Special Courts for Land Grabbing Cases pending in differentdistricts to the concerned jurisdictional Magistrates in different districtsof the State can be said to be in the teeth of the interim order passed bythis Court dated 27.02.2015 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 6050-6078/2015. Once the judgment and order passed by the High Courtquashing and setting aside G.O. No. 423 dated 28.07.2011 and G.O. No.451 dated 11.08.2011 came to be stayed by this Court, the jurisdiction ofthe concerned Special Courts to deal with the Land Grabbing Casescontinues. From the impugned orders, it appears that the learned SingleJudge of the High Court was aware of the pending proceedings beforethis Court and despite that the impugned orders are passed transferringthe final reports/cases from the concerned Special Courts to thejurisdictional Magistrates. Under the circumstances also, impugned orderspassed by the High Court dated 05.08.2019, 27.08.2019 & 29.08.2019passed in Criminal O.P. No. 20889/2019 are unsustainable and deserveto be quashed and set aside.

6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, thepresent appeals are allowed. Impugned judgment and orders dated05.08.2019, 27.08.2019 & 29.08.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge A

Aof the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal O.P. No. 20889/2019 directing transfer of approximately 864 cases from the concernedSpecial Courts to the concerned jurisdictional Magistrates are herebyquashed and set aside. However, the same shall be subject to the finaloutcome and the decision of this Court in the pending proceedings beingSpecial Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 6050-6078 of 2015. All these appealsBare accordingly allowed.

7. Before parting with these appeals, we observe that the HighCourts ought to be mindful and conscious about the consequences ofpassing orders such as those impugned in these appeals. Though thepowers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of CriminalCProcedure are wide and are in the nature of inherent power yet, the saidpower cannot be exercised suo motu in a sweeping manner and beyondthe contours of what is stipulated under the said Section. We hope andtrust that the High Courts would be more circumspect before passingsuch orders which are impugned and set aside in these appeals.

Nidhi jain

Appeals allowed.