The recent judgment by the High Court involves a detailed legal analysis regarding the quashing of transfer orders in a significant number of land grabbing cases. The court emphasized procedural irregularities and lack of jurisdiction in the previously issued orders. This decision sheds light on the importance of adhering to proper legal procedures and jurisdictional boundaries in such cases.
Facts
- The High Court has directed the concerned police officials to retrieve final reports from the Special Court for Land Grabbing Cases and file them before the CCB and CBCID.
- In a previous judgment, the High Court had set aside G.O. (Ms) No 423 dated 28.07.2011 and G.O. (Ms) No. 451, Home (Court III) Department dated 11.08.2011.
- The State of Tamil Nadu had created Anti Land Grabbing Special Cells and Special Courts to deal with Land Grabbing Cases, which was later the subject of controversy before the High Court.
- The High Court’s judgment allowed the State Government to consider enacting legislation similar to the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982.
- During the pendency of special leave petitions, the original complainant in a criminal case filed for the transfer of the case to another court.
- The judgment and order dated 10.02.2015 passed in writ petitions are being challenged in Special Leave Petitions.
- The operation of the judgment dated 10.02.2015 was stayed by the Supreme Court on 27.02.2015.
- As a result of the interim order, the jurisdiction of the Land Grabbing Cases is to be continued with the Special Cell/Special Courts.
- Subsequent orders were passed directing the transfer of multiple cases pending in Special Courts to jurisdictional Courts.
Also Read: Ruling on Circumstantial Evidence in Murder Case
Analysis
- The powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are wide but cannot be exercised suo motu beyond what is stipulated.
- The main Criminal O.P. No 20889/2019 was specific to one case and not a Public Interest Litigation (PIL).
- Passing orders to transfer 864 cases from Special Courts in different districts in a disposed of matter was procedurally incorrect.
- The practice of passing such orders on ‘special mentioning’ in a disposed of case is to be deprecated.
- Orders transferring cases/final reports to jurisdictional Magistrates were against an interim order of the Court from 27.02.2015.
- The orders transferring cases were passed despite awareness of pending proceedings before the higher Court.
- None of the parties involved in the cases ordered to be transferred were party to the High Court proceedings.
- Orders dated 27.08.2019 and 29.08.2019 based on ‘special mentioning’ by the Additional Public Prosecutor are without jurisdiction.
- Passing orders in a disposed of matter where no proceedings were pending before the Judge was irregular.
- Given that the High Court’s order quashing G.O. No 423 and G.O. No. 451 were stayed by the higher Court, the jurisdiction of Special Courts to deal with Land Grabbing Cases remains.
- The Single Judge had no authority to issue orders transferring cases once the matter was disposed of.
- The transfer of cases/final reports from Special Courts to jurisdictional Courts by the High Court was deemed unsustainable and required to be quashed.
Also Read: Challenging Legal Presumptions in Negotiable Instrument Cases
Decision
- Judgment and orders dated 05.08.2019, 27.08.2019 & 29.08.2019 passed by the High Court of Madras directing transfer of approximately 864 cases are quashed and set aside.
- The quashing of these orders is subject to the final decision of the pending Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 6050-6078 of 2015.
- It is advised that High Courts should consider the consequences before passing such orders.
- The impugned orders in Criminal O.P. No 20889/2019 are unsustainable and are quashed and set aside.
- The present appeals are allowed.
Also Read: Legal Analysis Critique in High Court’s Quashing Order
Case Title: THE REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Vs. STATE, REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE (2022 INSC 228)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000272-000274 / 2022
