Petitioner challenged via Article 227, citing a Supreme Court precedent, seeking bail reconsideration regarding an FIR. The court noted no order was impugned and the remedy lay under Section 482 Cr.P.C., finding no material to warrant Article 227 intervention.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 91
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 9469 of 2022
Petitioner :- Chhote Sahab @ Yogendra Singh Respondent :- State Of U P And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Sengar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Sushil Kumar
Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.
"(i) Direct the Learned Special Judge (Sc & St. Act), Jalaun at Orai to consider the Bail Application of the Petitioner herein in view of the guide lines issued by Hon'ble Apex Court in 'Satender Kumar Anitl Versus Central Bureau of Investigation And Another (2021) (10) SCC 773)' in respect of the Impugned First Information Report darted 21.08.2022 as Case Crime No.0042 of 2022, u/Ss. 323, 504, 337 Indian Penal Code, 1860 & 3(1) (r) (s) of the Scheduled Casts and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station-Churkhi, District Jalaun.
(ii) Direct the Learned Special Judge (Sc &St. Act), Jalaun at Orai to pass a fresh Order accordance with law in respect of the in Impugned First Information Report dated 21.08.2022 as Case Crime No.0042 of 2022, u/Ss. 323, 504, 337 Indian Penal Code, 1860 & 3(1) (r) (s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station-Churkhi, District Jalaun."
which are being reproduced.
"17. In the case of State of Gujarat versus V. S. Vaghela & others, (1968) 3 SCR 869 it is held that Article 227 of the Constitution of India gives the High Court the power of superintendence over all Courts and Tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. It is held that this jurisdiction cannot be limited or fettered by any act of the State Legislature. It is held that the supervisory jurisdiction extends to keeping the subordinate Tribunal's within the limits of the authority and to seeing that they obey the law.
28. Thus the law is that Article 227 of the Constitution of India gives the High Court the power of superintendence over all Courts and Tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. This jurisdiction cannot be limited or fettered by any act of the State Legislature. The supervisory jurisdiction extends to keeping the subordinate Tribunal's within the limits of their authority and to seeing that they obey the law. The powers under Article 227 are wide and can be used, to meet the ends of justice. They can be used to interfere even with an interlocutory order. However the power under Article 227 is a discretionary power and it is difficult to attribute to an order of the High Court, such a source of power, when the High Court itself does not in terms propose to exercise any such discretionary power. It is settled law that this power of judicial superintendence, under Article 227, must be exercised sparingly and only to keep subordinate Courts and Tribunal's within the bounds of their authority and not to correct mere errors. Further where the statute bans the exercise of revisional powers it would require very exceptional circumstances to warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India since the power of superintendence was not meant to circumvent statutory law. It is settled law that the jurisdiction under Article 227 could not be exercised "as the cloak of an appeal in disguise"
Order Date :- 29.11.2022
Asha
Digitally signed by ASHA Date: 2022.12.01 13:56:55 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether Article 227 jurisdiction can be invoked when no order of the court below is under challenge.
Whether the remedy under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is the appropriate avenue for quashing the FIR.
Whether the petition praying for bail reconsideration under Article 227 is maintainable.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State through Special Cell, New Delhi vs. Navjot Sandhu @ Afshan Guru and othersReferred¶11
State through Special Cell, New Delhi vs. Navjot Sandhu @ Afshan Guru and others 2003(6)SCC 641 · Who else cites this
State of Gujarat versus V. S. Vaghela & othersReferred¶13
State of Gujarat versus V. S. Vaghela & others, (1968) 3 SCR 869 · Who else cites this
Satender Kumar Anitl Versus Central Bureau of Investigation And AnotherReferred¶9
Satender Kumar Anitl Versus Central Bureau of Investigation And Another (2021) (10) SCC 773 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 4 enactments
Chhote Sahab @ Yogendra Singh
State Of U P
Another
Jyotsna Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
