Filing of charge sheet is no ground to dismiss plea for quashing proceedings: Supreme Court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said filing of the charge sheet was not a ground for the high court not to entertain a petition seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings.

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih also explained the scope of the applications filed for discharge and quashing the proceedings.

The court said in a petition for quashing filed either under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or under Article 226 of the Constitution, a wider challenge is available including a challenge on the ground of abuse of process of law.

In such proceedings, the accused can rely upon documents which are not part of the charge sheet, it said.

While arguing a case for discharge, on the other hand, the appellants will not be in a position to rely upon any document which is not the part of charge sheet. The ground of abuse of process of law will not be available, the court said.

Dealing with a petition filed by Mukesh and others, the bench noted the high court by a one-line order on May 8, 2024 dismissed the writ petition for quashing the criminal proceedings on the statement of the first informant that a charge sheet has been filed.

"We are surprised to note that without considering the case of the appellants on merits, the petition has been dismissed as infructuous. We fail to understand how a petition for quashing criminal proceedings becomes infructuous on the ground of filing of a charge sheet. Only on this ground itself, the order deserves to be set aside," the bench said.

The Uttar Pradesh government counsel defended the HC order, saying the appellants have an efficacious remedy to challenge the order framing charge by filing a revision application.

"We are shocked to note the approach adopted by the state government. What is suggested is that once charge sheet is filed, accused cannot do anything except to wait till the charge is framed and thereafter, can file a revision application to challenge the order of framing charge," the bench said.

The counsel for the State submitted the high court dismissed the petition, possibly because a remedy of filing revision application against the order framing charge was available.

"We do not see any such reason forthcoming from the impugned order as the petition is dismissed as infructuous without mentioning how it has become infructuous," the bench said.

The court emphasised it is true that the appellants can apply for discharge. However, the scope of application for discharge is completely different from the scope of a petition for quashing the criminal proceedings.

The bench rejected the submission by the state counsel.

"Though the submissions made on behalf of the State have no basis, we have dealt with the same elaborately to ensure that the same are not urged in a similar case," the bench said in its order on November 29.

The court remanded the matter back to the high court for consideration afresh upon merits.