Summary of the Judgment
Case Name: Sudershan Singh Wazir v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.
Date of Judgment: 28th February 2025
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judges: Hon'ble Justice Abhay S. Oka and Hon'ble Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Advocates:
Appellant: Shri Siddharth Luthra, Senior Advocate
Respondent (State): Shri Satya Darshi Sanjay, Additional Solicitor General
Respondent (Deceased’s Son): Shri Arjun Deewan
Acts & Sections Involved:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Sections 302, 201, 34, 120B
Arms Act, 1959: Sections 25, 27
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): Sections 227, 228, 390, 397, 401, 437A, 446
Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS): Sections 438, 442
Cited Judgments:
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Poosu & Ors. (1976) 3 SCC 1
Amin Khan v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2009) 3 SCC 776
State of Maharashtra v. Mahesh Kariman Tirki & Ors. (2022) 10 SCC 207
Parvinder Singh Khurana v. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1765 : 2024 INSC 546
Background of the Case
The case revolves around the alleged involvement of Sudershan Singh Wazir in the murder of a former Member of the Legislative Council of Jammu and Kashmir, who was also the Chairman of the Jammu and Kashmir Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee. The appellant was not named in the initial FIR but was later charged under IPC Sections 302, 201, 34, and 120B, along with Arms Act violations in the third supplementary chargesheet.
On 20th October 2023, the Additional Sessions Judge discharged the appellant and released him on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000. However, the Delhi High Court stayed the discharge order on 21st October 2023, which was subsequently extended. On 4th November 2024, the High Court directed the appellant to surrender, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.
Key Issues Before the Supreme Court
Whether the High Court was justified in staying the discharge order ex-parte?
Whether the High Court could direct the appellant to surrender after granting the stay?
The scope of the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC.
Revisional Jurisdiction of the High Court
The Supreme Court examined the power of the High Court under Sections 397 and 401 of CrPC, which empower the revisional court to call for records and examine the correctness, legality, and propriety of findings and orders. The judgment highlighted that under Section 401(1), the High Court can exercise powers similar to an appellate court, including those under Section 390 (arrest of accused in an appeal against acquittal).
However, the Supreme Court noted that an order staying a discharge is a severe measure, as it essentially reinstates the trial against the accused. The Court relied on precedent to assert that such an action should only be taken in rare and exceptional circumstances.
Effect of a Discharge Order
The Supreme Court elucidated that when a person is discharged under Section 227 CrPC, they cease to be an accused. This is distinct from an acquittal, as discharge occurs due to a lack of sufficient grounds to proceed. The Court cited the ruling in Parvinder Singh Khurana to hold that liberty granted through discharge should not be revoked lightly.
“An order staying the discharge order has a grave consequence of depriving an accused of the liberty granted under the discharge order.”
It was further emphasized that a stay on a discharge order should not lead to a full-fledged trial against the accused before the revision application is decided.
Whether the Stay on Discharge Order Was Justified?
The Supreme Court found the ex-parte stay on the discharge order to be improper. It ruled that the High Court should have provided an opportunity for the accused to be heard before granting such a drastic order.
“The ex-parte order of stay is entirely illegal. The consequences of such an order are very drastic.”
The judgment further highlighted that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by directing the appellant to surrender, effectively treating him as an accused before deciding on the revision application.
Power Under Section 390 CrPC
The Supreme Court examined the applicability of Section 390, which permits an appellate court to order the arrest of an acquitted accused. Since a discharged accused is in an even stronger legal position than an acquitted person, the Court ruled that an order of surrender should not have been passed without exceptional circumstances.
“A discharged accused stands on a higher pedestal than an accused who is acquitted after a full trial.”
The judgment held that instead of directing surrender, the appropriate course would have been to require the appellant to furnish bail until the revision application was decided.
Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court quashed the orders of the Delhi High Court and restored the appellant’s discharge. However, considering the gravity of the charges, it directed him to appear before the Sessions Court and furnish bail under Section 390 CrPC. The Court also instructed the High Court to expedite the hearing of the revision application.
Final Directions of the Supreme Court:
The orders dated 21st October 2023 and 4th November 2024 of the Delhi High Court were quashed.
The appellant was directed to furnish bail before the Sessions Court within four weeks.
The High Court was instructed to decide the revision application on priority.
The Sessions Court was empowered to impose conditions ensuring the appellant’s cooperation with the proceedings.
Conclusion
This judgment reiterates the fundamental principle that liberty, once granted through discharge, cannot be lightly curtailed. The Supreme Court has provided a nuanced interpretation of revisional powers, balancing procedural correctness with the need for judicial restraint.
By quashing the High Court’s ex-parte stay, the Supreme Court has reinforced that any interference with a discharge order must be carefully justified and exercised only in rare cases. This decision will serve as an important precedent in future cases involving the revisional jurisdiction of High Courts over discharge orders in criminal matters.
Comments