Court dismisses challenge to charge sheet as infructuous, upholding established limits on writ jurisdiction in criminal matters; binding in Uttarakhand High Court and its subordinate courts.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPCRL/54/2022 of HITESH KUMAR Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND |
| CNR | UKHC010004292022 |
| Decision Date | 18-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ PUROHIT |
| Court | High Court of Uttarakhand |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Precedent Value | Reaffirms established law on non-maintainability of writs against charge sheets |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure |
| Questions of Law | Maintainability of writ petition challenging charge sheet under Article 226 |
| Ratio Decidendi | Once investigation is complete and a charge sheet is filed, a writ petition under Article 226 challenging that charge sheet is infructuous. The appropriate remedy lies in statutory forums under the CrPC (e.g., quashing or revision applications), not in writ jurisdiction. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioners challenged criminal proceedings via writ; State filed charge sheet; petitioners’ counsel did not dispute its filing; court dismissed the writ as infructuous. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Uttarakhand |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
| Follows | Established precedents on non-maintainability of writs in criminal proceedings |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that Article 226 cannot be invoked to challenge a charge sheet once investigation concludes.
- Clarifies that statutory remedies under the CrPC (quashing or revision) are the proper forum for disputing a charge sheet.
- Emphasises that a writ petition becomes infructuous upon filing of the charge sheet.
- Advises practitioners to file challenges in the appropriate criminal forum to avoid dismissal.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The State’s uncontradicted submission recorded that investigation had ended and a charge sheet was submitted against the petitioners.
- Upon filing of the charge sheet, the writ petition under Article 226 no longer possesses practical utility and is thus infructuous.
- The court held that constitutional writ jurisdiction should not supplant statutory remedies provided by the Criminal Procedure Code for challenging charge sheets.
- Consequently, the petition was dismissed without examining merits, with liberty granted to the petitioners to approach the appropriate criminal forum.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Did not dispute that a charge sheet had been filed.
Respondent (State)
- After investigation, a charge sheet against the petitioners rendered the writ petition infructuous.
Factual Background
In WPCRL No.54 of 2022 the petitioners sought relief under Article 226 against ongoing criminal proceedings. During the writ hearing, the State informed the court that an investigation had concluded with the submission of a charge sheet. Petitioners’ counsel did not challenge this fact. The High Court held that, once a charge sheet is filed, a writ petition becomes infructuous and must be dismissed, allowing petitioners to pursue statutory remedies under the CrPC.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed