A petition under Section 482 CrPC can be dismissed by the High Court only on the ground that a discharge application is pending. The Supreme Court's division bench, presided over by Justices M. R. Shah and C. T. Ravikumar, issued notice in a Special Leave Petition that brought up this issue. 

The petitioners-accused in this case went to the Madras High Court to ask for the criminal charges against them to be dropped. The court took note of the fact that every accused person filed a petition for discharge under Section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the Trial Court while this petition was still pending. In light of the fact that the accused cannot pursue parallel remedies, the Court dismissed the petition.

Senior Advocate R.Basant, who represented the petitioners-accused before the Apex Court panel, cited Anand Kumar Mohatta and Others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2019) 11 SCC 706 in order to argue that the High Court should not have rejected the plea without considering the merits of the case. 

In Anand Kumar Mohatta, it was decided that High Courts might hear a plea under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code that sought the quashing of a FIR, even if the charge sheet was submitted while the petition was still pending. "There is nothing in the words of this Section which restricts the exercise of the power of the Court to prevent the abuse of process of court or miscarriage of justice only to the stage of the FIR. It is settled principle of law that the High court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C even when the discharge application is pending 2 (2011) 7 SCC 59 7 with the trial court. Indeed, it would be a travesty to hold that proceedings initiated against a person can be interfered with at the stage of FIR but not if it has advanced, and the allegations have materialized into a charge sheet. On the contrary it could be said that the abuse of process caused by FIR stands aggravated if the FIR has taken the form of a charge sheet after investigation. The power is undoubtedly conferred to prevent abuse of process of power of any court.", It was noted. 

The bench of Justices M R Shah and C T Ravikumar stated in the order to "issue notice to show cause why the matter may not be remitted to the High Court to consider the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. afresh."

Case Title: C.V.K.Balakrishnan vs State Of Tamil Nadu
Citation: SLP(Crl) Diary No(s). 2041/2023

Appearance of the Advocates

For Petitioner(s)

Mr. R. Basant, Sr. Adv.
Mr. A Velan, AOR
Mr. Niranjan S Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Navpreet Kaur, Adv.
Mr. Aditya Raj Singh, Adv.
Mr. Mritunjay Pathak, Adv.