2015 Supreme(SC) 659

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipak Misra, R.K. Agrawal and Prafulla C. Pant, JJ.
State of U.P. and Ors. - Appellant
Vs.
Anil Kumar Sharma and Ors. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 789 of 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 6054 of 2013)
Decided On : 14-05-2015

IMPORTANT POINTS
No court can issue a mandate to a legislature to enact a particular law.
It is not proper for the High Court to treat a Criminal Writ petition filed for quashing the FIR as PIL, that too without sufficient data and material before it.
Section 173 does not require accused to be produced along with the charge-sheet. Direction to that effect is not valid.
High Court cannot issue directions dispensing with requirement of committal of cases by the Magistrate to the Court of Sessions and asking the State Authorities to file compliance report.
High Court also cannot issue direction to get the Code of Criminal Procedure amended, that too when the Central Government is not a party.

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India – Separation of power – Legislation is exclusively in the domain of legislature – No court can issue a mandate to a legislature to enact a particular law – Courts should apply judicial restraint in issuing directions – Accountability of the judiciary in respect of its judicial functions and orders is vouchsafed by provisions for appeal, reversion and review of orders. (Para 14, 15, 20, 21, 25)

       (2011) 13 SCC 77; (2014) 11 SCC 477; (2008) 16 SCC 1; (2015) 2 SCC 796; (1997) 4 SCC 65; (2007) 8 SCC 279; (2007) 6 SCC 586; (1990) 2 SCC 533 – Relied upon

       (b) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Criminal Writ petition filed for quashing the FIR – High Court treating it as PIL – Issuing sweeping directions – Without sufficient data and material before it – Not proper. (Para 26)

       © Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 173 – No requirement to produce the accused along with the charge-sheet – High Court directing that Charge sheet be not accepted unless accused is also produced – In case of more than one accused and some of them absconding, no charge sheet could be filed – Direction impractical.(Para 26)

       (d) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 207 – Copies of all the papers not required to be copied before filing charge sheet – Direction for installing photocopying machines in police stations – Instead High Court could have directed such machines for the courts. (Para 27)

       (e) Constitution of India – Article 226 r/w section 209, Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 – High Court issuing directions in the matter of dispensing with requirement of committal of cases by the Magistrate to the Court of Sessions – Asking the State Authorities to file compliance report – Direction to get the Code of Criminal Procedure amended – Central Government not a party – High Court exceeded its jurisdiction. (Para 28)

       Facts of the case:

       A substantial question of law has been raised in this appeal, as to what extent a High Court can exercise its powers in issuing directions on judicial side, relating to the procedure to be adopted in criminal trials.

       This appeal is directed against the order dated 24.5.2013 passed by High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 62 of 2013 which has been kept alive even after it has become infructuous.

       Respondent No. 1, Anil Kumar Sharma (writ Petitioner), was a clerk with ESI Hospital at Agra. He was transferred and posted on 23.5.2012 to KRB Hospital, Agra. A First Information Report (FIR) was lodged against him in respect of offence punishable Under Section 409 of Indian Penal Code.

       The Respondent filed writ petition (Crl.) before the High Court on 3.1.2013.

       On 7.1.2013, the High Court granted interim stay of arrest of the writ Petitioner, and strangely made certain observations relating as to why the trials get prolonged due to various factors, including the non-arrest of accused by police while submitting the reports Under Section 173(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

       On the next date, i.e. 17.1.2013, the High Court directed the Appellant authorities to file compliance reports with affidavits, to the above order, as also with regard to the supply of copies to the accused Under Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure. Thereafter, on 5.2.2013, though the FIR in question was still under investigation, but the High Court, on its own motion, referred to procedural issues relating to criminal trials which were never adverted to in the writ petition, and directed the police authorities to get installed photocopying machines at the police stations for preparing the copies required to be supplied Under Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure.

       Next, on 24.5.2013, the High Court passed the impugned order wherein even after noting that final closure report has been filed in respect of the FIR in question (though the writ petition had become infructuous), it started monitoring the process of expediting the criminal trials in the State.

       Finding of the Court:

       High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing sweeping directions including amendment in the Cr PC.

       Result: Appeal allowed.