Keshav Prasad Sharma v. Indian Oil Corporation And Others, Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

SLPs (Crl.) Nos. 1646-47 of 2009, decided on January 25, 2011

Disposition

dismissed

Attorney(S)

Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Senior Advocate (Amit Bhandari, Ajay Veer Singh, Nitin Jain and Mohd. Irshad Hanif, Advocates) for the Petitioner;
Dr Rajeev Dhavan, R.S Cheema and K.V Viswanathan, Senior Advocates (Kamal Mohan Gupta, Ms Kawaljit Kochar, Ashok K. Sharma, Ms Kusum Chaudhary, D.P Singh, Ms Tarannum Cheema, Sanjay Jain, Anuj Prakaash, Abhishek Kaushik and Samir Ali Khan, Advocates) for the Respondents.

Judges

Justice Markandey Katju
Justice Gyan Sudha Misra

Acts

Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
Section 100 or Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure
Article 136 of the Constitution of India

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner is facing trial in which the Public Prosecutor filed an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to array Respondents 3 to 9 as co-accused. The trial court allowed the application, but the Punjab and Haryana High Court, by judgment dated 19-12-2008, set aside that order. The petitioner filed special leave petitions (SLPs) before the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s decision.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the Supreme Court should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution to interfere with the High Court’s order that set aside the trial court’s decision to summon additional accused under Section 319 CrPC.
Whether the absence of prejudice to the petitioner is a relevant consideration at the Article 136 stage when the underlying proceedings involve Section 319 CrPC.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner’s Arguments

Relied on Lok Ram v. Nihal Singh (2006) 10 SCC 192, Bholu Ram v. State of Punjab (2008) 9 SCC 140 and Suman v. State of Rajasthan (2010) 1 SCC 250 to contend that “prejudice” is not a relevant factor in proceedings under Section 319 CrPC.
Submitted that, because Respondents 3 to 9 were allegedly involved in the same crime, the High Court erred in quashing their summoning and the Supreme Court should restore the trial court’s order.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Lok Ram v. Nihal Singh (2006) 10 SCC 192	Prejudice to existing accused is not a determinative factor while summoning additional accused under Section 319 CrPC.	Cited by the petitioner; the Supreme Court distinguished its relevance, noting that even if prejudice is irrelevant at the trial court stage, it becomes pertinent when the Court exercises discretionary power under Article 136.
Bholu Ram v. State of Punjab (2008) 9 SCC 140	Similar proposition regarding the scope of Section 319 CrPC and considerations of prejudice.	Relied on by the petitioner; the Court reiterated that Article 136 review involves separate discretionary standards, making prejudice a relevant factor.
Suman v. State of Rajasthan (2010) 1 SCC 250	Scope of summoning additional accused under Section 319 CrPC without focusing on prejudice.	Used by the petitioner; the Court again limited its applicability to the context of Article 136 discretion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court first examined the High Court’s judgment and found that it contained no observations on the merits that could prejudice the petitioner. The Court emphasised that Article 136 confers a discretionary, residual power distinct from ordinary appellate jurisdiction; therefore, considerations of prejudice and exceptional circumstances are critical.

Applying this principle, the Court held that no prejudice had been demonstrated: the High Court merely reversed the Section 319 order without commenting adversely on the petitioner’s guilt or innocence. Because the State did not file its own SLP, and the petitioner’s grievance centred solely on the non-summoning of additional accused, the Court saw no compelling reason to intervene. Consequently, the precedents cited by the petitioner, although relevant to Section 319 applications, did not obligate interference at the Article 136 stage.

Holding and Implications

The special leave petitions are dismissed.

The trial court is directed to proceed expeditiously and complete the trial, uninfluenced by any observations of the High Court, preferably within six months from the date a copy of the Supreme Court’s order is produced. The decision affirms the High Court’s quashing of the Section 319 order, underscoring that Article 136 relief is discretionary and will not be granted absent demonstrable prejudice. No new legal precedent is set, but the judgment reinforces the limited scope of Supreme Court intervention under Article 136, particularly concerning interlocutory criminal orders.

Show full summary ...

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

Keshav Prasad Sharma v. Indian Oil Corporation And Others

Order

1. Heard the learned counsel for the appearing parties. These special leave petitions have been filed against the impugned judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 19-12-2008.

2. It appears that in the trial of the petitioner an application was filed by the Public Prosecutor to implead Respondents 3 to 9 herein as co-accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That application was allowed by the trial court, but the High Court has set aside the said order.

3. We have carefully perused the impugned order of the High Court. We find that there is no observation made by the High Court on the merits of the case which in any manner prejudice the trial of the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decisions of this Court in Lok Ram v. Nihal Singh (2006) 10 SCC 192, Bholu Ram v. State of Punjab (2008) 9 SCC 140 and Suman v. State of Rajasthan (2010) 1 SCC 250. On the basis of these judgments the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the question of prejudice is not relevant in proceedings under Section 319 CrPC. We are of the opinion that it may not be relevant at the stage of proceedings before the trial court under Section 319 CrPC but it is certainly relevant for proceedings under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, which is a discretionary jurisdiction.

5. Article 136 of the Constitution of India is not a regular form of appeal at all. It is a residual provision which enables the Supreme Court to interfere with any order of any court or tribunal in its discretion and in exceptional circumstances. It is not a regular forum of appeal like Section 100 or Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Hence, the question of prejudice is certainly relevant to proceedings in Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

6. In the present case, the impugned judgment of the High Court does not cause any prejudice to the petitioner since no observation on the merits of the case has been made by the High Court against the petitioner. Merely because the petitioner alleged that the aforementioned Respondents 3 to 9 were also guilty of the same crime is not relevant for us to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, when no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. The State has not filed any special leave petition before us and the position may have been different if a special leave petition had been filed by the State.

7. We direct the trial court to complete the trial uninfluenced by any observations made by the High Court in the impugned judgment expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of production of a copy of this order. With these observations, the special leave petitions are dismissed.

Keshav Prasad Sharma v. Indian Oil Corporation And Others

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner’s Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Keshav Prasad Sharma v. Indian Oil Corporation And Others

Comments