Point of law : Jurisdiction of High Court is not barred irrespective of label of a petition, be it under Section 397 or 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 227 of Constitution.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. The instant application dated 27.11.2021 has been moved seeking extension of interim stay order dated 18.12.2012, which was not extended further after 12.4.2019.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that vide order dated 18.12.2012 further proceedings of Complaint Case No. 77 of 2012, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 403 I.P.C. pending before the Civil Judge (J.D.)/J.M. Deoband, Saharanpur was stayed till the next date of listing with a direction to list the case after eight weeks before the appropriate Bench, but the trial court under the garb of judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. and Another vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2018) 16 SCC 299 has proceeded in the matter. Much emphasis has been given by contending that the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. and Another (supra) has been over ruled by the subsequent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Fazalullah Khan vs. M. Akbar Contractor (D) by LRs. and Others, 2019 (8) ADJ 615 (SC), therefore, the interim stay order dated 18.12.2012 is liable to be extended.

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of the applicants by contending that judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. and Another (supra) has not been over ruled till date. He further submits that the submission advanced on behalf of the applicants is not liable to be accepted as the same is wholly misconceived, therefore, the relief as sought by the applicants is liable to the rejected.

5. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, I find that the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. and Another (supra) has been decided by three Judges Bench of the Apex Court. The relevant paragraph nos. 35, 36 and 37 of the said judgment are reproduced herein-below:

“35. In view of above, situation of proceedings remaining pending for long on account of stay needs to be remedied. Remedy is required not only for corruption cases but for all civil and criminal cases where on account of stay, civil and criminal proceedings are held up. At times, proceedings are adjourned sine die on account of stay. Even after stay is vacated, intimation is not received and proceedings are not taken up. In an attempt to remedy this, situation, we consider it appropriate to direct that in all pending cases where stay against proceedings of a civil or criminal trial is operating, the same will come to an end on expiry of six months from today unless in an exceptional case by a speaking order such stay is extended. In cases where stay is granted in future, the same will end on expiry of six months from the date of such order unless similar extension is granted by a speaking order. The speaking order must show that the case was of such exceptional nature that continuing the stay was more important than having the trial finalized. The trial Court where order of stay of civil or criminal proceedings is produced, may fix a date not beyond six months of the order of stay so that on expiry of period of stay, proceedings can commence unless order of extension of stay is produced.

36. Thus, we declare the law to be that order framing charge is not purely an interlocutory order nor a final order. Jurisdiction of the High Court is not barred irrespective of the label of a petition, be it under Section 397 or 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 227 of the Constitution. However, the said jurisdiction is to be exercised consistent with the legislative policy to ensure expeditious disposal of a trial without the same being in any manner hampered. Thus considered, the challenge to an order of charge should be entertained in a rarest of rare case only to correct a patent error of jurisdiction and not to re-appreciate the matter. Even where such challenge is entertain