Petition Under Article 226 Deemed Inappropriate Following Cognizance; Remedy Suggested Under BNSS
In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Sanjay Wahi seeking to quash an FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court highlighted the limitations of Article 226 in quashing cognizance orders taken by a competent court, emphasizing the need for the petitioner to seek redress under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) or Article 227 of the Constitution.
The petitioner, Sanjay Wahi, had initially sought the quashing of an FIR dated August 3, 2024, which accused him of various offences including cheating and criminal breach of trust under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 504, and 507 of the Indian Penal Code. The dispute stemmed from a business transaction involving a partnership agreement that later turned contentious. The High Court noted that the matter largely pertained to civil disputes and that criminal proceedings should not be used to settle such issues unless there was fraudulent intent at the inception.
During the proceedings, the court observed that once a competent court has taken cognizance of a case, the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 to interfere is limited. This aligns with the guidelines set by the Supreme Court, which restricts the use of Article 226 for challenging judicial orders once a court has taken cognizance. Instead, the appropriate course of action lies in invoking Section 528 of the BNSS, akin to the previous Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., or Article 227, provided it is permissible under the court's roster.
The judgment also underscores the importance of the roster system in judicial proceedings, emphasizing that judges must adhere to their assigned jurisdictions. This principle ensures orderly administration and prevents judges from overstepping their designated judicial boundaries.
In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition as not maintainable, advising the petitioner to pursue remedies through appropriate legal channels that align with the procedural norms and jurisdictional mandates.
Bottom Line:
High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is limited to quashing FIRs or criminal proceedings prior to cognizance being taken by a competent court. Post-cognizance, the appropriate remedy lies under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) or Article 227 of the Constitution, as per the roster assigned by the Chief Justice.
Statutory provision(s): Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 504, 507 of the Indian Penal Code.
Sanjay Wahi v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2837479
