logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 SC 242 print Preview print Next print
Court : Supreme Court of India
Case No : Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 731 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH
Parties : Deepak Ananth & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra & Another
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioners: ----- For the Respondents: -----
Date of Judgment : 09-02-2026
Head Note :-
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 -
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.)

2. Catch Words:
- Section 482
- Discharge application
- Special Leave Petition

3. Summary:
The Court heard counsel for the petitioners who relied on Vijay & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra (2017) 13 SCC 317. The Court held that the cited case was inapplicable as it concerned the exercise of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. by a High Court despite other remedies. Here, the petitioners themselves filed a discharge application and later a Section 482 application, a matter of discretionary jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court found no ground to interfere with the impugned order. It clarified that neither the High Court’s order nor this judgment would affect the challenge to the rejected discharge application. The Special Leave Petition and any pending applications were disposed of.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed
Judgment :-

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners placed reliance upon an order passed by this Court in Vijay & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.- (2017) 13 SCC 317.

3. In our considered view, the above case has got no application to the present case of the petitioners, as it was a case dealing with a situation where the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.) ought to have been exercised by the High Court, notwithstanding the availability of other remedy.

4. In the case on hand, the petitioners, consciously on their own, have first filed an application for discharge and during the pendency of the said application have subsequently filed an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. which is a discretionary power.

In such view of the matter, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order.

5. However, we make it clear that the order passed by the High Court or the order passed by us will have no bearing on the challenge made to the order which had rejected the discharge application.

The Special Leave Petition stands disposed of.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
 
  CDJLawJournal