VERDICTUM.

IN

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.__________ OF 2024

[ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.12354/2024]

MUKESH & ORS. APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants and

learned counsel appearing for the State.

3. None appears for the first informant.

4. The appellants filed a petition before the High Court

of Allahabad praying for quashing the criminal proceedings.

The prayer in the writ petition was for quashing the First

Information Report (FIR) filed at the instance of the

fourth respondent for the offences punishable under

Sections 420, 467, 468, 470, 477, 448, 427 and 120B of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860.

5. By the impugned order dated 8th May, 2024, which is a

one line order, the High Court dismissed the writ petition

1
 VERDICTUM.IN

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 impugned order

deserves to be set aside.

6. Learned counsel representing the State of Uttar

Pradesh submits that the High Court order does not call for

interference as 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 by the State

Government 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.

7. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the State

submits that possibly because a remedy of filing revision

application against the order framing charge was available,

the High Court has dismissed the petition. We do not see

any such reason forthcoming from the impugned order as the

petition is dismissed as infructuous without mentioning how

2
 VERDICTUM.IN

it has become infructuous.

8. 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. While arguing a case

for discharge, 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 while arguing discharge application. However, in

a petition for quashing either under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India, 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 the part of the charge-sheet.

Therefore, we reject the submission made by learned counsel

appearing for the State. 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.

9. As merits of petition for quashing have not been gone

into, we set aside the impugned order and restore the

Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.5221 of 2022. The

restored writ petition shall be listed before the Roster

3
 VERDICTUM.IN

Bench of the High court of Judicature at Allahabad on 6 th

January, 2025 when parties who are present today shall

appear without waiting for the service of notice.

10. All contentions between the parties are left open to

be decided by the High Court.

11. Till further orders are passed by the High Court, the

trial shall not proceed.

12. The appeal is accordingly allowed.

13. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed

of.

..........................J.
(ABHAY S.OKA)

..........................J.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)

NEW DELHI;
NOVEMBER 29, 2024.

4
 VERDICTUM.IN

ITEM NO.40 COURT NO.5 SECTION II

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.12354/2024

[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated

08-05-2024 in CRMWP No. 5221/2022 passed by the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad]

MUKESH & ORS. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. Respondent(s)

Date : 29-11-2024 This petition was called on for hearing

today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Raghvendra Upadhyay, Adv.

Mrs. Purnima Jain, Adv.
Mr. Vaibhav Tripathi, Adv.
Mr. Awadhesh Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Chandra Kishore Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Kisalaya Shukla, AOR

For Respondent(s) Dr. Vijendra Singh, AOR

Ms. Preeti Goel, Adv.
Mr. Abhinav Rathi, Adv.
Ms. Apurva Singh, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.

(KAVITA PAHUJA) (AVGV RAMU)

AR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
[Signed order is placed on the file]