ASHISH CHADHA versus SMT. ASHA KUMARI & ANR.

ASHISH CHADHA versus SMT. ASHA KUMARI & ANR.

The High Court misdirected itself by quashing charges framed by the Special Judge against all accused, overstepping its revisional jurisdiction. It appraised evidence which it should not have done in revision, transferred the case without concrete material, and almost acquitted respondent No. 1 through strongly worded language. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, confirmed the charges framed by the Special Judge, and directed trial to proceed in accordance with law.

Parties
Appellant: Ashish Chadha; Respondent No. 1: Smt. Asha Kumari; Respondent No. 2: State of Himachal Pradesh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
02 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From High Court Order Setting Aside Charge and Transferring Case
Outcome
Appeal disposed of; impugned High Court order set aside; charge framing by Special Judge, Chamba confirmed; trial to proceed
Legal Topics
Article 136 Locus Standi and Supreme Court Discretionary Interference, Section 401 Cr PC High Court's Revisional Powers, Section 303 Cr PC Right to Counsel, Article 22(1) Right to Legal Representation, Transfer of Criminal Cases
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Article 136 Locus Standi and Supreme Court Discretionary Interference Section 401 Cr PC High Court's Revisional Powers Section 303 Cr PC Right to Counsel Article 22(1) Right to Legal Representation Transfer of Criminal Cases

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ashish Chadha

Appellant

Smt. Asha Kumari

Respondent No. 1

State of Himachal Pradesh

Respondent No. 2

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From High Court Order Setting Aside Charge and Transferring Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a non-party applicant (after death of original complainant) has locus to appeal under Article 136
  2. 2 Whether High Court exceeded revisional jurisdiction under s. 401 CrPC by quashing charges and transferring case without concrete material
  3. 3 Whether there was violation of respondent's right to be defended by a counsel of her choice under s. 303 CrPC and Article 22(1)

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court misdirected itself by quashing charges framed by the Special Judge against all accused, overstepping its revisional jurisdiction. It appraised evidence which it should not have done in revision, transferred the case without concrete material, and almost acquitted respondent No. 1 through strongly worded language. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, confirmed the charges framed by the Special Judge, and directed trial to proceed in accordance with law.

Court Disposition

Appeal disposed of; impugned High Court order set aside; charge framing by Special Judge, Chamba confirmed; trial to proceed

Orders

  • High Court order dated 29.04.2005 is set aside
  • Order framing charge dated 4.1.2005 by Special Judge, Chamba is confirmed