Allahabad High Court Rules SC's Automatic Stay Vacation Direction In 'Asian Resurfacing' Applies At All Stages Including Investigation, Inquiry
The Allahabad High Court has held that the Supreme Court's dictum of automatic vacation of stay in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited and Another v. Central Bureau of Investigation applies to all civil as well as criminal cases irrespective of the "stage" of the proceeding.A bench comprising of Justice Jyotsna Sharma held,“In my opinion, though in para- 36 of the judgment...
The Allahabad High Court has held that the Supreme Court's dictum of automatic vacation of stay in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited and Another v. Central Bureau of Investigation applies to all civil as well as criminal cases irrespective of the "stage" of the proceeding.
A bench comprising of Justice Jyotsna Sharma held,
“In my opinion, though in para- 36 of the judgment words "pending trial" has been used, but the intention of the Apex Court was to effectuate such direction, in all the civil as well as criminal cases irrespective of the "stage" of the proceeding. The court intended its ruling to apply wherever stay is granted, whether at the stage of investigation or at the stage of inquiry or at the stage of committal or the stages after the trial has commenced in a criminal case.”
In the Asian Resurfacing judgment, the Supreme Court had directed that in all pending cases where stay against proceedings of a civil or criminal trial is operating, the same will come to an end on expiry of six months from today unless in an exceptional case by a speaking order such stay is extended."In cases where stay is granted in future, the same will end on expiry of six months from the date of such order unless similar extension is granted by a speaking order.
High Court held that the word "trial" has not been used to signify that the judgment shall only apply where the stage of framing of charge has already reached at. "In case such an interpretation is allowed, the very purpose of the judgment shall fail,” it said.
Since six months from the stay order passed by the High Court in the Application under Section 482 of CrPC had lapsed, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat proceeded in the matter and passed orders in 2022. The stay granted by the High Court was considered vacated in light of the judgment of Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd.
Counsel for Petitioner contended that Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. applied only to cases where trial had actually commenced, i.e., charges had been framed. It was argued that the judgment of the Apex Court does not apply to cases which were at the stage of enquiry or investigation, as they had not reached the stage of trial.
The question which was considered by the Court was whether the ‘six months stay’ shall apply to all pending proceedings or only to cases where ‘trial’ in its legal sense has commenced.
Referring to the decision of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. , the Court observed that the Supreme Court had taken into account the inordinate delay which is caused in reaching the final stage in the proceedings, which leads to “erosion of faith” in the judicial system.
“The Supreme Court noted, probably with dismay, that as much as 32% of the cases were stayed at the most initial stage i.e. filing of charge-sheet, 19% of the cases were stayed at the stage of appearance of the accused or issuance of summons,” observed the Court.
The Court held that in case of any doubt regarding the interpretation of judgment of the Supreme Court, the Judges are allowed to enter in questions of policy. The mischief rule is applied to the interpretation of words in a judgment so as to find the ‘cure’.
“When there is any doubt, regarding actual meanings to be attached to the words used in a verdict, the Judges are allowed to enter into question of policy. The Court may go behind the phrases/words used to find out the real intention or the object. The Court has to see that behind giving such a direction what sort of mischief was intended to be curbed. This, in legal parlance is called "the mischief rule of interpretation". The Judge is expected to make such a construction as suppresses the mischief and adds force and life to the 'cure'.”
While dismissing the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Court held that the word “trial” used by the Supreme Court includes all civil and criminal proceedings where stay has been granted irrespective of the stage the proceedings are at.
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 342
Case Title: Chhote Lal Sharma v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner: Manish Singh, Sushma Singh