The Supreme Court docket not too long ago noticed that when a excessive courtroom units apart an order refusing to take cognizance of a felony grievance and remands the matter for contemporary consideration, the accused have to be heard as such an order essentially causes prejudice to the individual in opposition to whom allegations have been made.
A Bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and Ok Vinod Chandran made the statement whereas permitting an enchantment filed by Sandeep Shukla. The Bench discovered that the Allahabad Excessive Court docket had did not subject discover to Shukla earlier than setting apart an order refusing cognizance, thereby inflicting prejudice to him.
Why did the Supreme Court docket say the accused have to be heard?
Court docket stated that though the accused could don’t have any proper to be heard on the pre-cognizance stage, the place modifications when the excessive courtroom units apart an order refusing cognizance and remands the matter.
“Apparently, the appellant herein, impleaded as respondent, was not heard by the excessive courtroom. In truth, the excessive courtroom distributed with the discover to the 2nd respondent since he had no proper to be heard on the pre-cognizance stage. The excessive courtroom ought to have observed that if a remand is made, setting apart the order refusing cognizance, then that will essentially prejudice the individual in opposition to whom allegations are raised,” the Bench stated.
The case arose out of a dispute regarding an alleged cost of Rs 10 lakh for the sale of a flat. The complainant alleged that he had paid the quantity in two instalments, however neither was the cash returned nor was the flat bought to him.
He additional alleged that Shukla had known as him on the pretext of refunding the cash and assaulted him.
Prison proceedings can’t be used to get well cash
The Supreme Court docket additionally burdened {that a} dispute involving a cash transaction can not mechanically be changed into a felony case when the suitable treatment is to hunt restoration via a civil go well with.
“If there’s a cash transaction and the appellant has a requirement for its return, the treatment is to not provoke felony proceedings however to file a civil go well with for restoration,” the Bench stated.
Court docket famous that the second instalment was allegedly paid on January 27, 2020, whereas the primary grievance to the Superintendent of Police was made solely on March 13, 2023. It noticed that by then, the limitation interval for submitting a restoration go well with for the cash had expired.
“Repeatedly this courtroom has observed that felony proceedings will not be a measure of restoration of cash and civil disputes can’t be transformed into felony prosecution as an arm-twisting methodology to coerce the accused arrayed to fulfill the demand of cash raised,” the Bench stated.
What occurred earlier than the Supreme Court docket?
Based on the case document, the alleged transaction came about in 2019-20. In 2023, the complainant approached the Superintendent of Police alleging that he had been duped in reference to the proposed sale of the flat and had additionally been assaulted. When no motion adopted, he filed a grievance earlier than the Chief Judicial Justice of the Peace, Unnao.
Throughout an inquiry, the police discovered that there was no flat on the location allegedly identified by Shukla. The police additionally produced name knowledge data displaying that Shukla was in Lucknow on March 6, 2023, the date on which the alleged assault was stated to have taken place.
There was additionally a continuing below the Negotiable Devices Act, 1881 in regards to the identical Rs 10 lakh transaction in opposition to the spouse of a land dealer.
The Chief Judicial Justice of the Peace dismissed the grievance, holding that the dispute was civil in nature.
A felony revision was thereafter filed, following which the matter was remanded. The Extra Chief Judicial Justice of the Peace, Unnao, once more thought of the matter and dismissed the grievance.
The order was subsequently affirmed by the Extra District and Classes Choose, Unnao. The revisional courtroom discovered that the police inquiry report, supported by documentary proof, was opposite to the oral testimony relied upon by the complainant.
The complainant then approached the Allahabad Excessive Court docket below Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (akin to Part 528 of the BNSS).
The excessive courtroom put aside the order refusing cognizance and remanded the matter, however Shukla was not heard earlier than the order was handed.
The Supreme Court docket then put aside the excessive courtroom’s order, discovering “completely no purpose to maintain it”, restored the order refusing cognizance and dismissed the grievance.
Case Title: Sandeep Shukla Vs State of U.P. & Anr
Bench: Justices J B Pardiwala and Ok Vinod Chandran
Date of Judgment: August 05, 2026
