High Court Not To Blindly Convert Or Treat Petition U/S 482 CrPC As Revision Petition Filed U/S 397 CrPC Without Reference To Other Issues, Including Limitation: SC

The Supreme Court observed that it is not open for the High Court to blindly convert or treat a petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) as one filed under Section 397 of CrPC without reference to other issues, including limitation.

The Court observed thus in a criminal appeal filed against the order of the Allahabad High Court by which it set aside the discharge order of the Special Judicial Magistrate by which the accused persons were discharged of a charge under Sections 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Sanjay Kumar held, “We may also note that in the event a revision is lawfully instituted before the High Court but the same is thereafter found to be not maintainable on some other ground, it would be open to the High Court to treat the same as a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C in order to do justice in that case. However, the reverse analogy may not apply in all cases and it would not be open to the High Court to blindly convert or treat a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C as one filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C., without reference to other issues, including limitation. When the specific remedy of revision was available to the CBI, it could not have ignored the same and filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. We, therefore, find in favour of the appellants even on this count.”

Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Jaideep Gupta represented the appellants while ASG Vikramjeet Banerjee represented the respondent.

In this case, the accused/appellants were discharged by the Special Judicial Magistrate (SJM) and being aggrieved by the order of the SJM, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) approached the Allahabad High Court. The High Court set aside the discharge order and directed the Magistrate to proceed with the case against the accused persons. Hence, the appellants approached the Apex Court. The accused had established a society and registered it under the Societies Registration Act. The aim and objectives of such society was propagation of technical education. In 2006, the society acquired 4.90 acres of land on a 90-year lease from Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority for setting up educational institutions.

The society filed an application seeking approval of the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) to establish ‘Business School of Delhi’. All the information was disclosed by it with regard to the loan but against the query ‘Mortgaged with Bank – Yes/No’, the answer was stated as ‘No’. There was thus an apparent contradiction in the application itself. After approval, the society submitted another application to AICTE seeking to establish ‘Business School for Women’. It also filed yet another application for establishing ‘International Business School of Delhi’. An anonymous complaint was made to the Chief Vigilance Commissioner (CVC) alleging that AICTE officials showed undue favour to the society. CVC referred the matter to CBI and a case was registered against the appellants.

The Supreme Court in the above regard noted, “… it was not open to the CBI to blithely ignore the statutory remedy available to it under Section 397 Cr.P.C and thereafter resort to filing of an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.”

The Court said that the Magistrate was fully justified in exercising power under Section 239 of CrPC and discharging the appellants from criminal proceedings and that the High Court adopted a rather technical approach and practically concluded that the appellants were guilty of deliberately withholding relevant information so as to secure the approvals by deceitful means.

“This finding of the High Court is not supported by the admitted facts, which indicate disclosure of the mortgage at the outset when the first application was made and, therefore, there is no possibility of inferring that the appellants conspired in terms of Section 120A IPC to commit an illegal act of suppression so as to secure the approvals. Further, the AICTE itself never claimed that it was dishonestly induced to grant such approvals and that essential link is altogether missing, whereby any such criminal charge of cheating can be sustained against the appellants”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court, and restored the discharge order of the Special Judicial Magistrate.

Cause Title- Vipin Sahni and another v. Central Bureau of Investigation (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 284)

Appearance:

Appellants: Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Jaideep Gupta, Advocates Samir Rohtagi, Ajay Singh, Alka Sinha, and AOR Anuvrat Sharma.

Respondent: ASG Vikramjeet Banerjee, AOR Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Advocates Padmesh Mishra, Arkaj Kumar, Anukalp Jain, Bani Dikshit, and Merusagar Samantaray.

Click here to read/download the Judgment