Section 483 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 provided for the duty of the High Court to exercise continuous superintendence over the Courts of Judicial Magistrates. It is quoted below:
“Every High Court shall so exercise its superintendence over the Courts of Judicial Magistrates subordinate to it as to ensure that there is an expeditious and proper disposal of cases by such Magistrates.”
Under the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, Section 529 provides for a similar provision and is as follows:
“Every High Court shall so exercise its superintendence over the Courts of Session and Courts of Judicial Magistrates subordinate to it as to ensure that there is an expeditious and proper disposal of cases by the Judges and Magistrates.”
What is the difference between Section 529 of the BNSS and Section 483 of CrPC?
As can be inferred from the bare reading of the two sections, the jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court has been enlarged under Section 529 of BNSS as it provides for superintendence over the Courts of Sessions in addition to the Courts of Magistrates.
Hence, all remedies provided respecting the Court of Magistrates will extend to the Courts of sessions. Earlier, to challenge the proceedings before the Court of Sessions, a Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition was filed to expedite the proceedings. However, now, the same will be covered under Section 529 of CrPC.
What are the remedies provided under Section 483 CrPC/ 529 BNSS?
The nature of remedies provided under this jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court is primarily for expeditious disposal of the cases before the trial courts.
Section 483 enjoins every High Court to exercise its continuous superintendence over the Courts of Judicial Magistrates subordinate to it to ensure that there is expeditious and proper disposal of cases by such Magistrates.
It is, therefore, clear that the power of the High Court of continuous supervisory jurisdiction is of paramount importance to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed as also regularity of the proceedings of all inferior criminal courts.
Can direction be obtained from the Hon’ble High Court for executive Officers under Section 483/ 529 CrPC?
Under the Procedural Law in India, various powers have been vested in the Executive Officers also, eg. the Power to decide applications under Section 133 of CrPC etc.
However, application under Section 483 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 is not the way forward in such cases. power of the High Court to exercise its superintendence is meant for Courts of Judicial Magistrates only which are subordinate to it and such power does not extend to take within its purview the Executive Officers.
In the case of Sita Devi vs. State of U.P., it was prayed that the Application under Section 133 CrPC pending before Sub Divisional Magistrate, District Jaunpur be decided expeditiously within a stipulated period. Allahabad High Court laid down the law and held as follows:
“The provisions of Section 483 Cr.P.C. are very much clear and no direction in a proceeding under Section 133 Cr.P.C. can be given to the Executive Magistrate by this Court in the present application under Section 483 Cr.P.C.”
Is an application under Section 483/ 529 CrPC/ BNSS maintainable in case of proceedings under Section 125 CrPC before Family Court?
As the Family Court exercises jurisdiction of judicial magistrate while deciding an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., an application under Section 483 Cr.P.C. seeking a direction to the Family Court for expeditious disposal of an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. would be maintainable. This has been held in the case of Shiva Pankaj vs. State of U.P.
What are the grounds on which the Allahabad High Court exercises its jurisdiction?
In case of prayers for expediting the case, the Allahabad High Court usually grants an order for expeditious disposal of the case, preferably within a time as the Court may deem fit.
The Hon’ble Court peruses the order sheet in such matters, and if the delay is sincere, the Allahabad High Court orders in favour of the applicant.
However, in cases where the delay is due to the fault of the applicant, or sometimes due to other reasons, the Allahabad High Court has refrained from granting any relief.
In the case of Rajni Singh vs. State of U.P., the Allahabad High Court stated that the lawyers were abstaining from work which caused the delay, and therefore, relief cannot be granted under Section 483 CrPC.
If the Applicant is himself not appearing before the Trial Court on multiple instances, then also, the Allahabad High Court will not entertain a petition under Section 483 CrPC.
The Hon’ble Apex Court has also laid down the law regarding this in M. GOPALAKRISHNAN & ORS. vs. PASUMPON MUTHURAMALINGAM & ANR., and stated that the orders under Section 483 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 must examine the case from all angles. Relevant portion of the order of the Apex Court is quoted below:
“Looking to the nature of the order passed by the High Court, we are not inclined to grant leave to appeal in this matter but feel impelled to observe that ordinarily, before passing any such order for expeditious proceedings in a particular case (which might appear to be rather of innocuous nature), it would be appropriate for the higher Court to appreciate that any such order for one case, without cogent and extremely compelling reasons, might upset the calendar and schedule of the subordinate Court; might result in assigning an unwarranted priority to that particular case over and above other cases pending in that Court; and progression of such other cases might suffer for no reason and none of the faults of the litigants involved therein.
Moreover, such petitions, even when moved before the higher Court, need to be examined from all angles. It has transpired in the present matter that the said petition was filed by the complainant without even joining the accused persons as parties and the High Court had passed the impugned order while being not informed of the other relevant facts, including pendency of the revision petitions in the same High Court, as filed by the accused persons.”