Important Blogs

European Union Institutional body

A Criminal Miscellaneous Petition

Criminal Miscellaneous Petition

Criminal miscellaneous petitions in general, outside the dictionary and practice, mean "a formal expression of a request submitted through an application filed in criminal court or otherwise before criminal proceedings on various acts of relief for the certain privilege, right, benefit or for action.

The general criminal miscellaneous petition is an application filed in court seeking specific relief. The important functions of magistrate/judge in criminal courts are the criminal miscellaneous petition. Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions can be filed prior to register FIR in the form of anticipatory bail

Miscellaneous petitions can be filed during criminal proceedings, prior to proceeding or even after the conclusion of the same.

The court should be vigilant with these petitions regarding their maintainability at the point of jurisdiction. The orders passed in these petitions are mostly interim in nature, some petitions are for a specific purpose and some periods are interim or final.

When a petition is filed seeking interim relief, it is registered as a criminal miscellaneous petition. A memorandum filed before a court of law should not be treated as a petition. The main difference between a petition and a memo is that the memo is nothing but taking into account a fact before a court of law and no relief can be sought in the memo, however, where a petition is filed, Some relief from the court is required, in most cases notice to the opposite party is mandatory.

When a miscellaneous petition is filed in a criminal case, it is registered as a criminal miscellaneous petition. As soon as a petition is filed, the primary duty of the court is to see whether the relief sought is provided under the Criminal Procedure Code. If it is granted, the petition will be called in court and notice will be given to the opposite party, stating a miscellaneous number.

By hearing to both sides, a detailed order is to be pronounced. In one day, criminal courts come up with various criminal miscellaneous petitions that give varying relief. When a petition is filed under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Magistrate's Court and under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Sessions Court, before that case, demands the discharge of the accused from the warrant case or the session case, So the court has to see if there is any prima facie case against the accused or not. The court has to find out whether the allegations are baseless so that discharge can be ordered. The court is not expected to go to the depth of the case and will be sentenced for possessing the material. There is a need to consider whether there is any basis for an inference that a crime has been committed and not a basis for conviction

When a petition is filed before the Magistrate of I Class Court, seeking discharge of accused in a case exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the Magistrate cannot discharge the accused,

When a petition is filed before the Magistrate of the I Class Court, the Magistrate cannot discharge the accused, seeking the discharge of the accused in an exclusively triable case by the Sessions Court,

Sanjay Gandhi Vs. Union of India in view of the decision reported in AIR 1978 SC 514. There is absolutely no criminal petition for the discharge of the accused in the summons case. It was reported by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in A.Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal in AIR 2004 SC 4674 that "a criminal miscellaneous petition for discharge of the accused in the summons case is not maintainable because of no question of discharge in summoning cases. In the case of summons, the discharge of the accused is for withdrawal of summons, which is not admissible under law.

It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a judgment reported in AIR 2008 SC 1903 between Hemchander Vs. The state of Jharkhand states that “When a petition is filed for the discharge of the accused, the court cannot look at the documents produced by the accused. In crimes, the state becomes a party and the accused has to defend himself. It is the duty of prosecution on behalf of the state to prove the crime of an accused. In such a situation, there is no need to present any petition to the aggrieved party. It is the responsibility of the state to prosecute the offender who has committed crimes of criminal nature.

The Constitution of India empowers the Supreme Court and High Courts under Art. 32 and 226 are in the nature of ordinary original jurisdiction to provide a remedy for a petition through the issuance of jurisdiction under 226 of the High Court. It empowers each High Court to issue rights of nature of habeas corpus including directions, orders, or writ for the enforcement of any fundamental right in its territorial jurisdiction, as well as for "any other purpose". Every High Court has superintendence over all the Courts and Tribunals on the basis of Art.227, in relation to the areas which are constituted under any law relating to the Armed Forces.

The High Court should call for returns from such courts; Make and issue general rules regulating the practice and procedures of such courts, and prescribe forms in which books, entries, and accounts will be kept by the authorities of any such courts. It should be remembered that 227 does not function as a court of appeals under its jurisdiction under the High Court. Therefore, the decision cannot review or revisit the evidence.

Supervisory jurisdiction conferred under Art.227 is limited to observing that the lower court or tribunal acts within the limits of its authority and not to correct any error of law. (Mohammed Yunus v. Mohammed. Mustakim AIR 1984 SC 38, 40) Under the Criminal Procedure Code, the High Court has also secured its inherent jurisdiction under section 482. The High Court can exercise inherent powers in a proper case either to prevent misuse of any court process or to secure the ends of justice. The inherent power of the High Court should be exercised only in exceptional cases. (Amar Chand v. Shanthi Bose, AIR 1973 SC 799) lies in the following cases.

Jurisdiction of the High Court should be exercised to conclude or quash the proceedings. (R. P Kapoor v. Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866) where there is a legal preceding against the institution or continuation of proceedings where the claims in the FIR do not constitute the alleged offenses and where there is no legal one. Evidence added in support of the allegation or evidence added in support of the charge or clearly or manifestly proved to be a failure. No limit period has been set for applying under sec. 482 Cr.P.C.