ARUN SHANKAR SHUKLA versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

ARUN SHANKAR SHUKLA versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

The High Court's exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to stay further proceedings including non-bailable warrants after conviction, instead of directing accused to prefer statutory appeal, was illegal and contrary to procedural law; inherent powers cannot be invoked where Code provides a specific remedy.

Parties
Appellant Informant Injured Witness: Arun Shankar Shukla; Respondent Accused: Ram Gopal Misra; Respondent Accused: Ram Naresh; Respondent Accused: Radhey Sham Mishra; Respondent Advocate: A.S. Pundir; Respondent Advocate: Ms. Alka Aggarwal
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
23 July 1999
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against High Court Order
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Inherent Powers of High Court, Abuse of Process, Right to Appeal, Scope of Section 482 Cr PC
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Inherent Powers of High Court Abuse of Process Right to Appeal Scope of Section 482 Cr PC

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arun Shankar Shukla

Appellant Informant Injured Witness

Ram Gopal Misra

Respondent Accused

Ram Naresh

Respondent Accused

Radhey Sham Mishra

Respondent Accused

A.S. Pundir

Respondent Advocate

Ms. Alka Aggarwal

Respondent Advocate

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against High Court Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court can invoke its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to stay proceedings post-conviction instead of the accused preferring statutory appeal?
  2. 2 Whether the expressions 'abuse of the process of law' and 'to secure the ends of justice' confer unlimited jurisdiction on the High Court?

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court's exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to stay further proceedings including non-bailable warrants after conviction, instead of directing accused to prefer statutory appeal, was illegal and contrary to procedural law; inherent powers cannot be invoked where Code provides a specific remedy.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • The High Court order entertaining the petition under Section 482 and all interim orders passed thereunder are quashed.
  • The learned Sessions Judge is directed to hear the accused on the question of sentence and pass appropriate orders according to law.