MANOHAR M. GALANIversusASHOK N. ADVANI

A                             MANOHAR M. GALAN!
                                      v.
                               ASHOK N. ADVANI

                                NOVEMBER 17, 1999

B                   [G.B. PATTANAIK AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.]


          Constitution of India, 1950/Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: Article
    226/Section 482-Scandal in functioning of a Subordinate Court in Gujarat-
    Public interest petition filed-High Court took cognizance and directed
C   inquiry-Accused persons in the analogous complaints filed petitions for
    quashing of the complaints-High Court quashed the complaints and also
    dismissed the public interest petition-appeal preferred-Held, High Court
    in exercise of its powers under extraordinary jurisdiction cannot interfere
    with the collateral proceeding initiated by itself
D          Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: Sections 195 and 482-Complaints
    filed by appellants against the accused persons-Alleged lodging of false
     complaints against appellants-Complaints challenged before High Court-
    High Court quashed the complaints-On appeal-Held, High Court was not
    justified in elaborately discussing the merits of the case and coming to the
E   co11c/usion that Section 195 will be a bar.

          The appellanUcomplainant filed a complaint alleging that the accused,
    KK had invested money in shares and stocks, when the share market crashed
    in Stock Exchange. KK, however, made appellant responsihle and pressurised
    him to compensate the loss, and on his refusal KK lodged false criminal
F   complaints against appellant and his family members in various places in
    pursuance of which the appellant and his family members were arrested and
    lodged in jails. It was also alleged that KK threatened that in case of their
    release on bail, they would be arrested in some other case after being made
    an accused. Local press covered the incident and exposed the entire scandal
G   being carried out in Court at Dakor in the State of Gujarat. In the newspaper,
    it was revealed that warrants of arrest could be issued against anyone from
    the said Court on the mere asking. On coming to know of the entire episode,
    a social activist filed a public interest petition in the High Court of Gujarat.
    The High Court directed D.G. of Police to conduct an inquiry and submit
    report. A number of reports were submitted before the High Court which
H                                         458
                 MANOHARM. GALAN! v. ASHOK N. ADV AN!                      459
according to the appellant established innocence of his family members.           A
Pending the said public interest petition when the complaints were being
investigated into, the accused persons in the complaint case moved the High
Court. The High Court quashed the said two complaints and the pending public
interest petition as well. Hence the present appeals.

       The appellant contended that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction      B
in quashing the FIRs and the public interest petition in which the High Court
itself had directed inquires. It was contended that in view of gross
irregularities committed by the accused persons and undue harassment of
the complainants, complaints could not have been quashed on the finding that
Section 195 Cr.P.C. would be a bar to proceed further. Respondents contended      C
that various subject matters of the complaint were already being inquired into
and therefore, allowing any further inquiry would be an abuse of the process
of the Court. However, non justification of quashing of the public interest
petition was conceded by the respondents.

      Allowing the appeals, the Court                                             D
       HELD: 1. So far as the public interest petition is concerned, not only
the counsel for both sides agreed that the same ought not to have been set
aside but it is also difficult to understand how the High Court in exercise of
its power under extraordinary jurisdiction can interfere with a collateral
proceeding initiated by the High Court itself in an application filed in public   E
interest. There cannot be any dispute that the facts revealed a serious scandal
in the functioning of some subordinate Court in the State of Gujarat and,
therefore, the High Court took cognizance of the matter and directed inquiry
to be conducted, and on the basis of the said inquiry, it was open for the High
Court to issue necessary directions and at that stage the impugned order has      F
emanated. The impugned judgment setting aside the aforesaid public interest
petition is erroneous and is, therefore, set aside. [462-B-D]

       2. So far as the quashing of the complaints and inquiry on the basis of
FIR registered by the complainant are concerned, the High Court was not
justified in interfering with the same by an elaborate discussion on the merits   G
of the matter and in coming to the conclusion that Section 195 Cr.P.C. will be
a bar. It was rather premature for the High Court to come to the aforesaid
conclusion and on account of the orders passed, the investigation into several
serious allegations are being throttled. Therefore, the orders quashing the
two complaints and investigation made thereunder are set aside. [462-E, F]
                                                                                  H
    460                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 4 S.C.R

A        CRIMINAL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal Nos.
     1211-16of1999.

           From the Judgment and Order dated 14.8.97 of the Gujarat High Court
    in Cr!. M.A. No. 751, 933/95, S.C.R. A. No. 372, 436, 527/95, S.C. A. No. 13258
    of 1994.
B
         Gopal Subramanium, Kavin Gulati, D.M. Gulani and Prashant Kumar for
    the Appellant.

         R. Sundaravaradan, R.P. Bhatt, K.G. Shah, R.N. Keshwani, Chandrakanta
    Nayak, Ramlal Roy, (Chirag M. Shroff) for M.N. Shroff, S.H. Raichura, H.A.
C   Raichura, Harish J. Jhaveri and Ms. Hemantika Wahi, for the Respondents.

          (S.M. Jadhav) for Mrs. V.D. Khanna and R.B. Misra for Respondent No.
    10.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

D         PATT ANAIK, J. Leave granted.

           The order of the Gujarat High Court quashing the complaints as well as
    further investigation taken up by the police stations and also setting aside
    all the proceedings in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 5722 of 1994
    in C.R. No. 211 of 1994 is being challenged in these appeals at the instance
E   of the complainant. The complaints are the outcome of nefarious incident that
    took place, in Dakor Court in the district of Kheda in State of Gujarat. It was
    revealed in the newspaper that from the said Court warrants can be issued
    against any one by mere asking for and in fact from the said Court at Dakor,
    non-bailable warrants had been issued against Justice M.L. Pendse, the then
    acting Chief Justice of Bombay High Court. So far as the complaints which
F   have been quashed by the High Court of Gujarat, it was alleged that family
    of the complainant came in contact with the accused, Mr. Kishore Keswani
    who had loi of political influence. Mr. Kishore Keswani had invested money
    in shares and stocks and when the share market crashed in Mumbai Stock
    Exchange, several depositors/investors sustained loss. Shri Keswani, however,
G   made the complainant responsible and pressurised him to compensate the
    loss. Notwithstanding several pressure tactics, when the complainant did not
    succumb to the pressure, the said Shri Keswani lodged false criminal complaints
    against the complainant and his family members in various places and
    Ulhasnagar. He was also successful in obtaining warrants of arrest against the
    complainant and his family members and the complainant and his family
H   members were arrested and lodged in various police stations and jails. It was
            MANO HARM. GALAN! v. ASHOK N. ADVANI [PA TTANAIK, J.]                 461
..   further alleged in the complaint that the moment the complainant or any of ·A
     his family members would be released on bail in one case, they would be made
     accused in some other case and would be arrested. The complainant took the
     assistance of a local Press reporter from Mumbai and exposed the entire
     scandal that was happening in the Court at Dakor. A social activist when
       " to know of the entire episode from the newspaper, he filed a writ petition B
     came
     in public interest before the Gujarat High Court which was registered as
     Special Civil Application No. 13258 of 1994, and in that petition, prayer was
     made for suitable directions to the Government of Gujarat and Bar Council of
     Gujarat. On the said public interest petition, the High Court directed the
     Director General of Police to conduct an inquiry and submit report. Several
     reports were submitted to the Gujarat High Court which according to the C
     complainant would establish his innocence and innocence of his family
     members who were being unnecessarily harassed by false and frivolous
     criminal proceedings. It further transpires that the High Court on the
     administrative side took action suspending the Judicial Magistrate at Dakor
     Court in the district Kheda and no final decision had been taken in the
     pending public interest petition. At this stage, when the complaints were D
     lodged by the complainant which were being investigated into, the accused
     persons named in the complainant case moved the High Court and the High
     Court by the impugned order quashed the two complaints as well as the
     public interest petition which was pending before it and hence the present
     appeals.                                                                       E
            Mr. Gopal Subramanium, learned senior counsel appearing for the
     complainant submitted that the High Court obviously exceeded its jurisdiction
     in quashing the F!Rs as well as the pending public interest petition where-
     under certain inquiries were directed by the High Court itself, on a finding that
     Section I 95 will get attracted. According to Subramanium, gross irregularities     F
     having alleged to have been committed by the accused persons and the
     complainants having been harassed unduly by the accused persons, the High
     Court could not have throttled the investigation and quashed the pro;eedings
     on a finding that Section I 95 would be a bar to proceed further. According
     to Mr. Gopal Subramanium, the bar under Section I 95 of the Code of Criminal        G
     Procedure can be gone into at the stage when the Court takes cognizance of
     the offence and an investigation on the basis of the information received
     could not have been quashed and an investigating agency cannot be throttled
     at this stage from proceeding with the investigation particularly when the
     charges are serious and grave. Learned counsel for the respondents on the
     other hand contended that the various subject matters of complainant are            H
    462                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 4 S.C.R

A already being inquired into and, therefore, allowing any further inquiry or            ...
    complaint if allowed to be proceeded with, it will be an abuse of the process
    of the Court. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, fairly conceded
    that the Court was not justified in quashing the public interest petition which
    has been registered as Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 5722 of 1~94
B   in C.R. No. 211 of 1994.

           So far as the public interest petition is concerned, not only the counsel
    for both sides agreed that the same ought not to have been set aside but we
    also fail to understand how the High Court in exercise of its power under
    extraordinary jurisdiction can interfere with a co-lateral proceeding initiated by
C   the High Court itself in an application filed in public interest . There cannot
    be any dispute that the facts revealed a serious scandal in the functioning
    of some. subordinate Court in the State of Gujarat and, therefore, the High
    Court took cognisance of the matter and directed inquiry to be conducted,
    and on the basis of the said inquiry, it was open for the High Court to issue
    necessary directions and at that stage the impugned order has emanated. In
D   our considered opinion, the order in the impugned judgment setting aside the
    aforesaid public interest petition is erroneous and we, therefore, set aside the
    said order and direct that the public interest petition should be considered
    by the High Court on merits on the basis of the reports submitted to the Court
    and appropriate directions be given whatever the Court thinks fit.

E           So far as the quashing of the complaints and inquiry on the basis of
    FIR registered by the complainant are concerned, we also find that the High
    Court was not justified in interfering with the same and quashing the
    proceedings by an elaborate discussion on the merits of the matter and in
    coming to the conclusion that Section 19 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
F   will be a bar. In our opinion, it was rather premature for the High Court to
    come to the aforesaid conclusion and on account of the orders passe~, the
    investigation into several serious allegations are being throttled. We, therefore,
    set aside the orders quashing the two complaints and the investigation made
    thereunder and direct that those cases may proceed in accordance with law.
    Needless to mention that our setting aside the impugned order does not
G   tantamount to expression of our opinion on merits and the accused, therefore,
    may not feel aggrieved and are entitled to take any appropriate remedy that/--
    is available to them under the law.

            Criminal Appeals are allowed in the above terms.

H   RC.K.                                                          Appeals allowed.