1. Appeal against High Court order setting aside a summoning order for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2021 Supreme(SC) 957
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. Khanwilkar, Sanjiv Khanna, JJ.
Shahid Iqbal Khan – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. ……….of 2021 (Arising out of SLP(Crl) No. 5371 of 2019)
Decided On : 13-07-2021
Important Points
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of non-interference by the High Court with the Trial Court's order, especially after the rejection of the discharge application, and the directive for the Trial Court to proceed in the matter on its own merits and in accordance with the law.
Subject
Criminal Law - Interference with Trial Proceedings
Act Referred
Headnote
Interference - Criminal Trial - Quashing of Summoning Order
Fact of the Case:
The appeal challenged the High Court's judgment setting aside the order summoning the private respondents to face trial for various offences under the Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court had taken cognizance of the offence and rejected the discharge application of the private respondents.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the High Court should not have interfered with the Trial Court's order, especially after the rejection of the discharge application. The impugned judgment and order were quashed and set aside, allowing the private respondents to seek other remedies.
Issues: The key issue was the interference by the High Court with the Trial Court's order summoning the private respondents for trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that the High Court should not have interfered with the Trial Court's order, especially after the rejection of the discharge application. It also highlighted that the Trial Court should proceed in the matter on its own merits and in accordance with the law, uninfluenced by the observations made in the impugned order.
Final Decision: The appeal was disposed of by quashing the impugned judgment and order, allowing the private respondents to seek other remedies, and leaving all other contentions open for both sides. The Trial Court was directed to proceed in the matter on its own merits and in accordance with the law.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. B.H. Marlapalle, Sr. Adv., Mr. Abhijit Ganguly, Adv., Mr. Chand Qureshi, Adv., Mr. Harish Dasan, Adv., Mr. Hiren Dasan, AOR
For the Respondent: Mr. Saket Singh, Adv., Mrs. Niranjana Singh, AOR, Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, AOR
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. B.H. Marlapalle, Sr. Adv., Mr. Abhijit Ganguly, Adv., Mr. Chand Qureshi, Adv., Mr. Harish Dasan, Adv., Mr. Hiren Dasan, AOR
For the Respondent: Mr. Saket Singh, Adv., Mrs. Niranjana Singh, AOR, Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to High Court's interference with a summoning order despite the subsequent rejection of the accused's discharge application by the Trial Court. (Para 2 , 3 )
3. The High Court overlooked the material fact that the Trial Court had already rejected the respondents' application for discharge after taking cognizance. (Para 3 , 4 )
4. High Court interference with a summoning order is improper when a subsequent development, such as the rejection of a discharge application, has occurred. (Para 4 )
5. Impugned judgment quashed; Trial Court directed to proceed on merits; respondents granted liberty to pursue other legal remedies. (Para 5 , 7 )
6. Whether a High Court should interfere with a summoning order if the Trial Court has subsequently rejected a discharge application?
No, the High Court should not interfere with a summoning order when a subsequent development, such as the rejection of a discharge application by the Trial Court, has taken place. (Para 3 , 4 )
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 27.03.2019 passed by the High Court of judicature at Patna in Criminal Miscellaneous No.1281 of 2017, whereby the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 24.10.2016 summoning the private respondents to face trial for an offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Banka P.S. Case No. 773 of 2015, G.R. No. 2802 of 2015 came to be set aside.
3. What is crucial to notice is that the Trial Court had not only taken cognizance of the subject offence, but the aggrieved private respondents had also resorted to remedy of discharge, which application stood rejected on 30.01.2019. That fact, however, has been completely glossed over by the High Court.
4. In view of the subsequent development, after the order was passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 30.01.2019, the High Court should not have interfered with the said order.
5. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order is quashed and set aside while giving liberty to the private respondents to take recourse to such other remedy, as may be permissible in law, including consequent to the rejection of discharge application vide order dated 30.01.2019.
6. All other contentions available to both sides are left open.
7. Needless to observe that the Trial Court may proceed in the matter on its own merits and in accordance with law uninfluenced by the observations made in the impugned order.
8. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
9. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
