HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PRESENT : HON. SHRI JUSTICE R.C. MISHRA HON. SMT. JUSTICE VIMLA JAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Writ Petition No.5959/2008 Smt. Meena Mehra, aged about 45 years, Tahsildar Kundam, D/o Shri Kamal Singh Thakur, R/o 131-D, Napier Town, Distt. Jabalpur (M.P.) …Petitioner vs. (1) The Lokayukt Organization through its Registrar, Bhopal. (2) The Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt Organization, Jabalpur Zone, Distt. Jabalpur (M.P.) …Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Adarsh Muni Trivedi, Senior Counsel with Shri Ashish Trivedi, Adv. for the petitioner. Shri Aditya Adhikari, Special Public Prosecutor, for the respondents-SPE (Lokayukt). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- & WRIT RIT P PETITION ETITION N NO.2571/2011 .2571/2011 Vivek Tripathi, son of Shri Ayodhya Tripathi, aged about 37 years, Resident of 516, Garha, Distt. Jabalpur …Petitioner vs. (1) Lokayukt Organization through its Registrar, Bhopal. (2) Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt Organization, Jabalpur Zone, Distt. Jabalpur (M.P.) …Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Adarsh Muni Trivedi, Senior Counsel with Shri Ashish Trivedi, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Aditya Adhikari, Special Public Prosecutor, for the respondents-SPE Lokayukt. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24
Embed
PRESENT :HON. SHRI JUSTICE R.C. MISHRA HON. SMT. JUSTICE VIMLA …mphc.gov.in/upload/jabalpur/MPHCJB/2008/WP/5959/W… · · 2011-11-05R/o 131-D, Napier Town, ... son of Late Shri
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
&&MMISCISC. C. CRIMINALRIMINAL C CASEASE NNOO.4261/2010.4261/2010
Alok Kumar Shrivastava, son of Late Shri B.L. Shrivastava,aged about 52 years, Working as SDM, Sihora, Resident of S.M.S.2, Civil Lines, Sihora, Distt. Jabalpur …Petitioner
vs.
(1) State of Madhya Pradesh, Through Secretary, General Administrative Department, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal
(2) Department of Lokayukt, through Secretary, State of M.P.,Lokayukt Office, Bhopal
(3) Superintendent of Police (Lokayukt), Special Police Establishment,Lokayukt Organization, Civic Centre Distt. Jabalpur …Respondents
Shri Umesh Pandey, Govt. Adv. for respondent no.1-State.
Shri Aditya Adhikari, Spl. P.P., for respondent nos.2 and 3.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing : 15.07.2011.
Date of Order : 23.09.2011.
O R D E R
Per R.C. Mishra, J.
These petitions are interlinked as they relate to the same case
registered on 31.01.2008 as Crime No.08/08 at Special Police
Establishment (Lokayukt), Bhopal for the offences punishable under
Sections 120-B & 420 of the IPC and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the PC Act') against
the petitioners and one Kishorilal Vishwakarma, the then Patwari of
Halka No.25/31 at Jabalpur.
2. W.P. Nos.5959/08 and 2571/2011 are the petitions, under
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a
partition deed is governed by proviso (c) to Article 45 of the
Schedule I-A of the Stamp Act, 1899, that reads as under -
“when land is held on Revenue settlement (Notwithstanding the fact that land revenue thereon is payable or not), the market value for the purpose of duty shall be calculated at sixty times the annual land revenue”
Further, in an enquiry conducted by Nazul Officer, the
allegation as to causing loss of stamp duty to the tune of
Rs.4,32,000/- has been found to be baseless.
(v) Necessary conditions contemplated under the Madhya
loss to the State Exchequer. According to him, by and large, it can
easily be inferred that all the revenue officers named in the FIR with
an ill motive had acted upon Smt. Indira Pastala’s application in
collusion with each other.
8. Let us first advert to the preliminary objection based on sub-
Section (1) of Section 3 of the JP Act, which reads thus -
3. Additional Protection to Judges. – (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force and subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), no Court shall entertain or continue any civil or criminal proceeding against any person who is or was a Judge for any act, thing or word committed, done or spoken by him when or in the course of, acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty or function.
9. Learned Senior Counsel, while making reference to Section 2
of the JP Act, has submitted that definition of Judge, as given in
Section 2 thereof, is wide enough to include revenue officers upon
whom status of the Courts has been conferred by Section 31 of the
MPLRC. He has further contended that each one of the petitioners,
being empowered by law to give in any legal proceeding a definitive
judgment, was entitled to additional protection under Section 3(1) of
the JP Act. Extensive arguments addressed in support of the plea
regarding the protection may be summarized as under -
It is no doubt correct that with the coming into
force of Entry 11-A of List III it is no more the exclusive
power of the State Legislature to legislate under the
said Entry but "administration of justice" and
"constitution and organisation of all Courts" are the
subjects on which the State Legislature can legislate
of service and not in discharge of his/her duty and without any justi-
fication. These precedents are, therefore, distinguishable on facts.
Furthermore, as clarified in sub-section (2) of S.3 thereof, sub-Sec-
tion (1) does not, in any way, take away or abridge the power of the
State Government to initiate such action (whether by way of civil,
criminal, or departmental proceedings or otherwise) against any per-
son who is or was a Judge. For a ready reference, sub-section (2)
may be reproduced below -
“Nothing in sub-sec.(1) shall debar or affect in any manner the power of the Central Government or the State Government or the Supreme Court of India or any High Court or any other authority under any law for the time being in force to take such action (whether by way of civil, criminal, or departmental proceedings or otherwise) against any person who is or was a Judge.”
15. Thus, on a careful analysis of the protective provisions of
Section 3 of the JP Act, we are of the view that they do not operate
as legal bar to investigation into the allegation against any one of
the petitioners.
16. All the relevant aspects relating to competence of the
Lokayukt Organization to investigate into the allegations have
already been dealt with in U.K. Samal v. The Lokayukt
Organization I.L.R. [2011] M.P. 1702. Accordingly, the
objection as to competence of the investigation agency to continue
with the investigation has no merit or substance. Further, as
explained in another Division Bench of this Court in Deo Vrat
Mishra v. State of M.P. 2011 (2) M.P.L.J. 365, the form of
complaint made to the Lokayukt Organization also does not assume
17. In State of W.B. v. Swapan Kumar Guha AIR 1982 SC
949, whereupon strong reliance has been placed by learned Senior
Counsel, a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, while
explaining the nature and scope of interference with investigation in
a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, laid
down following guidelines -
“If on a consideration of the relevant materials, the Court is satisfied that an offence is disclosed, the Court will normally not interfere with the investigation into the offence and will generally allow the investigation in the offence to be completed for collecting materials for proving the offence. If, on the other hand, the Court on a consideration of the relevant materials is satisfied that no offence is disclosed, it will be the duty of the Court to interfere with any investigation and to stop the same to prevent any kind of uncalled for and unnecessary harassment to an individual”.
18. Since it is not possible to hold that the FIR discloses no
offence against the writ petitioners namely Meena Mehra and Vivek
Tripathi, the first between the two guiding principles is attracted to
the facts of the instant case. It is, therefore, not a fit case requiring
interference with the investigation under the writ jurisdiction.
19. Coming to the petition filed by Alok Kumar Shrivastava, it may
be seen that recitals of the FIR as against him primarily concern the
offences of cheating and conspiracy. As per the allegations, he was
also involved in conspiracy pursuant to which he had allegedly tried
to protect petitioner Vivek Tripathi from the penal consequences
flowing from the order-dated 21.05.2002 by according sanction to
review the same, –
(a) ignoring the legal position that no order affecting any
22. Admittedly, investigation is still on its way. It is a statutory
function of the police and the superintendence thereof is vested in
the State Government. In Sanapareddy Maheedhar Seshagiri v.
State of A.P. (2007) 13 SCC 165, the Apex Court, upon a
conspectus of all the leading decisions on the ambit and scope of
this Court’s powers of interference with investigation including the
one rendered in Swapan Kumar Guha’s case (supra), sounded a
note of caution in the following words -
“The High Court should be extremely cautious and slow to interfere with the investigation and/or trial of criminal cases and should not stall the investigation and/or prosecution except when it is convinced beyond any manner of doubt that the FIR does not disclose commission of any offence or that the allegations contained in the FIR do not constitute any cognizable offence or that the prosecution is barred by law or the High Court is convinced that it is necessary to interfere to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.
In dealing with such cases, the High Court has to bear in mind that judicial intervention at the threshold of the legal process initiated against a person accused of committing offence is highly detrimental to the larger public and societal interest. The people and the society have a legitimate expectation that those committing offences either against an individual or the society are expeditiously brought to trial and, if found guilty, adequately punished”.
23. Nature, scope and purpose of Section 482 of the CrPC again
fell for consideration before the Supreme Court in Central Bureau
of Investigation v. Ravi Shankar Srivastava, (2006) 7 SCC
188. In that case, the FIR was registered by Superintendent of
Police (CBI), Jaipur against the respondent no.1 viz. Ravi Shankar
Srivastava, a member of Indian Administrative Service, upon the
information in regard to certain advertisements involving criminal
conspiracy resulting in commission of the offences including the one
under Sections 13(2) and 13(1) of the PC Act. However, a Single
Bench of Rajasthan High Court quashed the FIR on the ground of
competence of the CBI to register the FIR under the Delhi Special
Police Establishment Act, 1946. Observing that the High Court was
not justified in quashing the proceedings based on the FIR, the
Supreme Court not only set aside the order but also re-affirmed the
following illuminating guidelines -
All courts, whether civil or criminal possess, in the absence of any express provision, as inherent in their constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in the course of administration of justice on the principle “quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsae esse non potest” (when the law gives a person anything it gives him that without which it cannot exist). While exercising powers under the section, the court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the courts exist.
One of the many categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings is where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. While dealing with the such case, it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is clearly inconsistent with the accusations made, and a case where there is legal evidence which, on appreciation, may or may not support the accusations. When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a