Aman Kumar v. State of HP & Anr.: Wrong CrPC section does not defeat appellate jurisdiction

Ratio / rule laid down

A wrong or non-applicable statutory reference does not invalidate an order or proceeding where the Court possesses jurisdiction under another applicable provision. The Court must treat the proceeding according to the provision that actually confers jurisdiction, rather than allowing an erroneous recital to defeat substantive adjudication.

Why this matters for lawyers

• Advocates should not assume that an incorrect section citation, by itself, defeats an otherwise maintainable criminal appeal or application.
• Where the factual and jurisdictional foundation is clear, seek correction or appropriate treatment under the correct provision instead of filing afresh merely to cure nomenclature.
• The principle is not a licence to bypass an express statutory scheme: as the Court noted through Palaniappa Gounder, inherent powers cannot override an express provision governing the subject matter.
• The defect remains material if the Court lacks jurisdiction under the provision that actually applies; the present ruling addresses only an erroneous citation where jurisdiction independently exists.
• The decision is confined to correction of the cited provision and does not decide the merits of the underlying appeal.

Facts

Aman Kumar filed the present application seeking correction of the section mentioned in the appeal. The appeal had inadvertently been presented under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) instead of Section 372 of CrPC.

The applicant therefore sought an order correcting the statutory reference. The State was represented, and the Court heard the application before allowing the correction.

Issues

The central question was whether the erroneous reference to Section 374 of Cr.P.C. deprived the Court of jurisdiction to entertain an appeal which, in substance, fell under Section 372 of Cr.PC.

A related question was whether the error required rejection of the proceeding or could be cured by reading it under the provision that actually conferred jurisdiction.

Court's Reasoning

The Court applied the established principle that a proceeding does not become invalid merely because the litigant or authority cites the wrong statutory provision. In Palaniappa Gounder v. State of T.N., the Supreme Court held that an application wrongly filed under Section 482 could nevertheless be dealt with under Section 357, because the High Court’s jurisdiction was not affected by the erroneous description. That decision also demonstrated the limit of the principle: an express provision governing the subject matter must be applied instead of invoking inherent powers.

The Court then referred to State of Karnataka v. Muniyalla, where an order cited under Section 409 was sustained because the authority possessed the necessary power under Section 194. The Supreme Court’s formulation was that a wrong recital does not invalidate an order otherwise within the authority’s power. The same approach was reiterated in Kishun Singh v. State of Bihar and T. Nagappa v. Y.R. Muralidhar: once jurisdiction exists, exercise of that power under a wrong provision does not render the order illegal or invalid.

Applying that doctrine, the Court found it undisputed that it had jurisdiction under Section 372 of the Cr.PC to entertain an appeal at the instance of the victim. Mentioning Section 374 therefore did not take away that jurisdiction. The application was allowed and the section was ordered to be corrected to 372 Cr.P.C.

Key Takeaways

• A wrong section citation does not defeat jurisdiction where the Court has power under the correct statutory provision.
• The Court may read and decide a proceeding under the provision that substantively governs it, notwithstanding an erroneous caption or recital.
• The principle does not permit reliance on inherent powers where an express statutory provision applies.
• The correction here was from Section 374 to Section 372 of Cr.P.C.; the underlying appeal was not decided on merits.

What Remains Unresolved

The order addresses only the statutory correction. The merits and maintainability of the underlying appeal were not adjudicated. Separately, Cr.MP(M) No. 90 of 2025 was directed to be listed for consideration after two weeks.

Precedents discussed

• Palaniappa Gounder v. State of T.N.(1977) 2 SCC 634: 1977 SCC (Cri) 397Referred to

  Wrongly cited Section 482 application could be dealt with under Section 357

• State of Karnataka v. Muniyalla(1985) 1 SCC 196Referred to

  Wrong statutory recital does not invalidate an otherwise authorised order

• Kishun Singh v. State of Bihar(1993) 2 SCC 16Referred to

  Exercise of existing power under a wrong provision does not invalidate the order

• T. Nagappa v. Y.R. Muralidhar(2008) 5 SCC 633: (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 677Referred to

  Wrong or omitted statutory reference is immaterial where jurisdiction exists

Source judgment: Aman Kumar v. State of HP & Anr.