Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. Nageswara Rao, B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.
Asif Idrees – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 9971 of 2021 (Arising out of impugned interim order dated 09-11-2021 in A482 No. 22187 of 2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad)
Decided On : 17-01-2022
Interlocutory - High Court Order - The court declined to interfere with the interlocutory order passed by the High Court, dismissing the Special Leave Petition and permitting the petitioner to approach the High Court to expedite the hearing of the application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The court declined to interfere with the interlocutory order passed by the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Special Leave Petition is dismissed, and pending application(s) shall stand disposed of. The petitioner is permitted to approach the High Court to expedite the hearing of the application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Issues:
Ratio Decidendi:
Final Decision: The Special Leave Petition is dismissed, and the petitioner is permitted to approach the High Court to expedite the hearing of the application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
ORDER
1. We are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the High Court which is interlocutory in nature. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
2. However, the petitioner is permitted to approach the High Court and make a request to expedite the hearing of the application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
The principle of non-interference with interim orders when the matter is still pending before the lower court.
The main legal point established is that the Supreme Court's jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India does not warrant interference with the High Court's order.
The Supreme Court emphasized the need for the High Court to expedite the disposal of pending applications under Article 226(3) of the Constitution, reinforcing the principle of timeliness in legal pr....
Orders for expeditious proceedings should only be passed with cogent and extremely compelling reasons and after examining the matter from all angles. Pending matters should also be considered expedit....
The court's discretion in entertaining petitions and the importance of expeditious appeal decisions by the High Court
Courts generally defer to the decisions of lower courts unless there is a clear error on the record.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's interim order, emphasizing that the appeal process must be respected and that stay applications may be renewed at the appropriate level.
The court's decision not to interfere in the impugned judgment and the specific observations regarding the learned Single Judge's remarks.
The court upheld the High Court's decision to reject the petitioner's request for interim protection, leading to the dissolution of the interim protection granted earlier.
Observations in the order granting bail should be construed only for the purpose of bail and should not affect the merits of the trial or be pressed in any other collateral proceedings.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
