Supreme Court Affirms the authority of Chief Justices of the High Courts in assigning cases among High Court (HC) judges

Recently, the two-judge bench of the Supreme Court (SC) of India constituting Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra reaffirmed the authority of Chief Justices of the High Courts in assigning cases among High Court (HC) judges. It said that judges of the High Courts cannot convert the nomenclature of the petitions before them without the approval of the Chief Justice if the same does not fall within their assigned jurisdiction. This was observed by the top court in a case where the Allahabad High Court dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to quash FIR in a criminal case. The writ petition was dismissed by the High Court holding the same to have been rendered infructuous in view of the filing of charge-sheet under section 173(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as well as an order passed by the competent criminal court taking cognizance of the offence. 

During the proceedings, the counsel appearing for the petitioner argued, “The High Court grossly erred in dismissing the Writ Petition…it is settled principle of law that a First Information Report can be quashed by a high court even when a discharge application is pending. Support is sought to be drawn from the decision in Anand Kumar Mohatta vs. State (NCT of Delhi), more particularly paragraph ‘16’ thereof. The decision in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal  is placed to remind us of the situations when a high court either under Article 226 of the Constitution or under Section 482, Cr. PC could exercise the power for quashing an FIR. He, thus, urges that merely because cognizance of the offence has been taken upon filing of the chargesheet, the same per se did not have the effect of curtailing the authority of the High Court in any manner to interfere if the allegation that the FIR does not disclose any offence or that the FIR has been lodged to wreak vengeance is sufficiently proved, and a satisfaction is reached that continuance of proceedings on the basis thereof would amount to an abuse of the process of the court.”

The SC bench after considering various existing decisions opined, “A Judge of a high court having been assigned petitions under Article 226 for hearing and decision by its Chief Justice cannot, if he (the Judge) finds that the petition filed under Article 226 should have ideally been filed under Article 227, treat the petition as one under Article 227 and proceed to hear and decide it, unless the Chief Justice has also assigned to such Judge petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution for hearing and decision. If not so assigned, the learned Judge may, in his discretion, direct the petition to be treated as one under Article 227 for being placed before the learned Judge having assignment.” It also said, “If during the pendency of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before a high court where an FIR is challenged the investigation is completed and chargesheet filed, in pursuance whereof the competent criminal court takes cognizance of the offence, the court would be disabled in proceeding with the writ petition owing to a judicial order having intervened ... If a judicial order passed by a civil court cannot be challenged in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, a fortiori, a judicial order passed by a criminal court cannot also be challenged in a writ petition under Article 226.”

Moreover, the petitioner’s counsel also contended that “the High Court, upon noticing that the competent criminal court had taken cognizance of the offence, should have treated the Writ Petition as a petition either under Article 227 of the Constitution or under Section 482, Cr. PC and proceeded to determine as to whether the proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR should be allowed to continue or not.” He added that the nomenclature of the plea was of no relevance and contended, “If otherwise the High Court was not found to be denuded of the power to interfere in another jurisdiction and rendering substantive justice to the parties being the primary consideration, the High Court in the present case ought not to have been guided by a mere technicality.” However, the SC relied on the decision in the State of Rajasthan vs. Prakash Chand, observing that the nomenclature of a petition does not matter. Lastly, the bench dismissed the appeal stating that there was nothing wrong with the Allahabad HC’s decision.