SANJAI TIWARIversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

966                      [2020]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT    9 S.C.R. 966                [2020] 9 S.C.R.


A                               SANJAI TIWARI
                                        v.
                 THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
                        (Criminal Appeal No. 869 of 2020)
B                            DECEMBER 16, 2020
            [ASHOK BHUSHAN, R. SUBHASH REDDY AND
                       M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
            Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
C            s.482 – Application under – Filed by an advocate claiming to
      be social activist – Seeking direction to expedite and conclude a
      criminal case u/ss. 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A and 120B IPC and
      s. 13(1) r/w. s. 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act – High Court
      allowed the petition directing the Court concerned to expedite the
      proceedings – Appeal to Supreme Court by the accused – Held:
D
      High Court has power to direct the trial court to expedite the criminal
      trial – Criminal trial in respect of offences under Prevention of
      Corruption Act have to be conducted and concluded at the earliest
      – But the plea to expedite the proceedings cannot be raised by third
      party in the garb of Public Interest Litigation – Thus the applicant
E     (advocate) had no locus to file the application – Therefore, the
      application u/s. 482 is dismissed – However, it will be open for the
      trial court to expedite the trial.
            Allowing the appeal, the Court
            HELD: 1. Criminal trial where offences involved are under
F     the Prevention of Corruption Act have to be conducted and
      concluded at the earliest, since the offences under Prevention of
      Corruption Act are offences which affect not only the accused
      but the entire society and administration. The High Court in
      appropriate cases can very well under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or in
G     any other proceeding can always direct trial court to expedite
      the criminal trial and issue such order as may be necessary.
      [Para 11][970-F-G]
           2.1 In the present case, the proceeding initiated by
      respondent No.2 does not appear to be a bona fide. Respondent
H
                                       966
SANJAI TIWARI v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.                     967


No.2 is in no way connected with initiation of criminal proceeding     A
against the appellant. Respondent No.2 in his application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. has described himself as a social activist and
an Advocate. An application by a person who is in no way
connected with the criminal proceeding or criminal trial under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot ordinarily be entertained by the High
                                                                       B
Court. A criminal trial of an accused is conducted in accordance
with procedure as prescribed by the Criminal Procedure Code.
It is the obligation of the State and the prosecution to ensure that
all criminal trials are conducted expeditiously so that justice can
be delivered to the accused if found guilty. The present is not a
case where prosecution or even the employer of the accused             C
have filed an application either before the trial court or in any
other court seeking direction as prayed by respondent No.2 in
his application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is for the parties in
the criminal case to raise all the questions and challenge the
proceedings initiated against them at appropriate time before the
                                                                       D
proper forum and not for third parties under the garb of Public
Interest Litigants.[Paras 11 and 14][970-H; 971-A-C; 973-A]
       2.2 Normally no exception can be taken to the order of the
High Court directing the trial court to expedite the criminal trial
but in the present case the fact is that proceedings have been
initiated by respondent No.2 who was not concerned with the            E
proceedings in any manner and respondent No.2 has no locus to
file the application which was not clearly maintainable. Therefore,
the application filed by respondent No.2 under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
is dismissed. [Paras 15 and 16][973-C-D]
      Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary and Others (1993) 1                 F
      SCC 756 – relied on.
      3. However, it will be open for the trial court to expedite
the criminal trial, the offences being the offences under the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, subject to any order passed
by the High Court in pending proceedings. [Para 16][973-E]             G
                      Case Law Reference
(1993) 1 SCC 756               relied on              Para 12

                                                                       H
968            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2020] 9 S.C.R.


A           CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
      869 of 2020.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 09.09.2020 of the High Court
      of Judicature at Allahabad in Application u/s 482 No. 13465 of 2020.
            Sharan Thakur, AAG, Ajit Sharma, Rohit K. Singh, Ajay Kumar
B     Prajapati, Ms. Sneha Ravi Iyer, Advs. for the appearing parties.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
            ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
            1. Leave granted.
C
            2. This appeal has been filed questioning the order dated 09.09.2020
      passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Application under
      Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by respondent No.2 on which application the
      High Court directed the trial court to expedite the criminal trial and
      conclude the same at the earliest.
D
            3. The appellant is an accused in FIR No.02/2006, Vigilance
      Department, Lucknow under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A & 120B
      IPC and Section 13(1) C/D read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption
      Act, 1988. The Vigilance Department of State of Uttar Pradesh
      commenced an inquiry on a complaint filed by one R.K. Choudhary.
E     Writ Petition No.45047 of 2005 was filed by the appellant in the High
      Court challenging the Vigilance Inquiry initiated against him. The High
      Court directed on 22.08.2005 that unless complainant R.K. Choudhary
      is examined first no inquiry can be proceeded with against the appellant.
      On 08.12.2005, the Secretary, Vigilance, U.P. directed lodging of an FIR
      against the appellant and five others. On the basis of which FIR No.02/
F
      2006 was registered against the appellant. Writ Petition No.572 of 2006
      was filed by the appellant in which the High Court stayed the order
      dated 08.12.2005 passed by the Secretary, Vigilance Department which
      order was continued by order dated 31.12.2006. In PIL No.35628/2013
      the High Court by an order on 04.07.2013 directed conducting of a
G     preliminary investigation by CBI. Writ Petition No.45047 of 2005 filed
      by the appellant was dismissed due to non-appearance of counsel on
      29.01.2020. After which charge-sheet dated 23.05.2020 was filed by
      the Vigilance Department against the appellant before the Court of
      Additional District Judge/Special Judge(A/C), Court No.5, Gorakhpur,
      U.P. Respondent No.2 filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on
H
SANJAI TIWARI v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.                             969
                 [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

04.08.2020 seeking direction to Special Judge to expedite and conclude         A
Special Trial No.520/2020. Respondent No.2 in his application in
paragraph 6 disclosing his locus has made the following averments:
      “6. That the applicant is a social activist and an Advocate by
      profession and a person having an urge to positively contribute to
      the society in all possible ways. He puts it on oath that he is not      B
      filing this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for any personal
      interest. He or any of his relations are not going to be benefited
      by filing the application.”
       4. Respondent No.2 has further stated in his application that
although FIR was lodged on 09.01.2006 but it got delayed by tactics            C
opted by the accused persons. The Vigilance Department completed
the investigation after about 14 years and still the accused persons are
trying to get away from the charges. The aforesaid application filed by
respondent No.2 came before the High Court for consideration on
09.09.2020 which application stood disposed of by the following order:
                                                                               D
      “The instant application has been filed to expedite and conclude
      Special Trial No.520 of 2020, “State of U.P. vs. Sanjai Tiwari”
      relating to Case Crime No.02 of 2006, under Sections 420, 467,
      468, 471, 477A & 120B IPC and Section 13(1) C/D read with
      13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Kursi,
      District Barabanki, pending in the court of Additional District Judge/   E
      Special Judge, Anti Corruption Act, Court No.5, Gorakhpur.
      Learned Senior Counsel submits that the special trial pending
      before the court below be expedited.
      Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the                 F
      application stands disposed of directing the Court concerned to
      expedite the proceedings of the aforesaid case and conclude the
      same, at the earliest possible, on day to day basis without granting
      any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, in accordance
      with law, provided there is no impediment.”
                                                                               G
       5. Learned counsel for the appellant questioning the order of the
High Court submits that the High Court committed error in entertaining
the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at the instance of respondent
No.2 who had no locus standi to file a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
It is submitted that the High Court without issuing any notice to the
                                                                               H
970            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2020] 9 S.C.R.


A     appellant who was an accused in the trial and was impleaded as
      respondent No.2 in 482 Cr.P.C. application passed the order.
             6. It is further submitted that the present was not a case where it
      can be said that any delay is caused by the accused. It is submitted that
      relevant fact is that proceeding consequent to lodging of FIR remained
B     stayed by the High Court for entire period due to which any charge-
      sheet could be filed, which fact was not brought into the notice of the
      High Court when the order impugned was passed. It is submitted that
      even lodging of FIR against the appellant is challenged before the High
      Court by filing a writ petition which was dismissed on non-appearance
      on 29.01.2020. Appellant filed a restoration/recall application seeking
C     restoration of Writ Petition No.45047/2005 on 15.06.2020.
            7. Learned counsel for the State submits that all criminal trials
      where offences involved are under the Prevention of Corruption Act
      have to be held on day to day basis and no exception can be taken to the
      order passed by the High Court.
D
             8. Respondent No.2 although had appeared in this proceeding on
      03.11.2020 through counsel but subsequently has instructed his counsel
      not to appear any further and failed to appear on 09.12.2020 which was
      the date fixed by this Court.

E           9. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for
      the parties and perused the records.
            10. From the facts which have been brought on record it is clear
      that Criminal Trial No.520 of 2020 was registered only after filing of
      charge-sheet on 23.05.2020 in FIR 02/2006, not even charges have been
F     framed by the trial court as on date.
              11. It is well settled that criminal trial where offences involved
      are under the Prevention of Corruption Act have to be conducted and
      concluded at the earliest since the offences under Prevention of
      Corruption Act are offences which affect not only the accused but the
      entire society and administration. It is also well settled that the High
G
      Court in appropriate cases can very well under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or in
      any other proceeding can always direct trial court to expedite the criminal
      trial and issue such order as may be necessary. But the present is a case
      where proceeding initiated by respondent No.2 does not appear to be a
      bona fide proceeding. Respondent No.2 is in no way connected with
H
SANJAI TIWARI v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.                            971
                 [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

initiation of criminal proceeding against the appellant. Respondent No.2      A
in his application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in paragraph 6 has described
him as a social activist and an Advocate. An application by a person
who is in no way connected with the criminal proceeding or criminal trial
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot ordinarily be entertained by the High
Court. A criminal trial of an accused is conducted in accordance with
                                                                              B
procedure as prescribed by the Criminal Procedure Code. It is the
obligation of the State and the prosecution to ensure that all criminal
trials are conducted expeditiously so that justice can be delivered to the
accused if found guilty. The present is not a case where prosecution or
even the employer of the accused have filed an application either before
the trial court or in any other court seeking direction as prayed by          C
respondent No.2 in his application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
      12. With regard to locus of a third party to challenge the criminal
proceedings or to seek relief in respect of criminal proceedings of
accused had been dealt with by this Court in Janata Dal vs. H.S.
Chowdhary and others, (1993) 1 SCC 756. In the above case the                 D
CBI had registered FIR under the IPC as well as under the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1947 against 14 accused. On an application filed by
the CBI the learned trial Judge allowing the application to the extent that
a request to conduct necessary investigation and to collect necessary
evidence which can be collected in Switzerland passed order on
05.02.1990 which is to the following effect:                                  E

             “In the result, the application of the CBI is allowed to the
      extent that a request to conduct the necessary investigation and
      to collect necessary evidence which can be collected in
      Switzerland and to the extent directed in this order shall be made
      to the Competent Judicial Authorities of the Confederation of           F
      Switzerland through filing of the requisite/proper undertaking
      required by the Swiss law and assurance for reciprocity.”
       13. A criminal miscellaneous application was filed by Shri H.S.
Chowdhary seeking various prayers before the Special Judge which
petition was dismissed by the Special Judge. A criminal Revision under        G
Sections 397/482 Cr.P.C. was filed by H.S. Chowdhary in the High Court
to quash the order of the Special Judge, which Revision was also dismissed
by the High Court. The appeals were filed in this Court by different
parties challenging the said order including H.S. Chowdhary. This Court
                                                                              H
972            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2020] 9 S.C.R.


A     while dismissing the appeals filed by the H.S. Choudhary and others
      made the following observations:

            ”26. Even if there are million questions of law to be deeply gone
            into and examined in a criminal case of this nature registered
B           against specified accused persons, it is for them and them alone
            to raise all such questions and challenge the proceedings initiated
            against them at the appropriate time before the proper forum and
            not for third parties under the garb of public interest litigants.
            “27. We, in the above background of the case, after bestowing
C           our anxious and painstaking consideration and careful thought to
            all aspects of the case and deeply examining the rival contentions
            of the parties both collectively and individually give our conclusions
            as follows:
               1. Mr. H.S. Chowdhary has no locus standi (a) to file the petition
D              under Article 51A as a public interest litigant praying that no
               letter rogatory/request be issued at the request of the CBI and
               he be permitted to join the inquiry before the Special Court
               which on 5.2.90 directed issuance of letter rogatory/request to
               the Competent Judicial Authorities of the Confederation of
               Switzerland; (b) to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the High
E              Court under Sections 397 read with 401 of the CrPC challenging
               the correctness, legality or propriety of the order dated 18.8.90
               of the Special Judge and (c) to invoke the extraordinary
               jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC
               for quashing the First Information Report dated 22.1.90 and all
F              other proceedings arising therefrom on the plea of preventing
               the abuse of the process of the Court.
                      …………              …………              …………
               28. In the result, we agree with the first part of the Order
               dated 19.12.90 of Mr. Justice M.K. Chawla holding that
G              Mr. H.S. Chowdhary and other intervening parties have no
               locus standi. We, however, set aside the second part of the
               impugned order whereby he has taken suo moto cognizance
               and issued show cause notice to the State and CBI and
               accordingly the show cause notice issued by him is quashed.”
H
SANJAI TIWARI v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.                               973
                 [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

        14. This Court in the above case laid down that it is for the parties    A
in the criminal case to raise all the questions and challenge the proceedings
initiated against them at appropriate time before the proper forum and
not for third parties under the garb of Public Interest Litigants.
       15. We are fully satisfied that respondent No.2 has no locus in the
present case to file application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. asking the            B
Court to expedite the hearing in criminal trial. We have already observed
that all criminal trials where offences involved under the Prevention of
Corruption Act have to be concluded at an early date and normally no
exception can be taken to the order of the High Court directing the trial
court to expedite the criminal trial but in the present case the fact is that
proceedings have been initiated by respondent No.2 who was not                   C
concerned with the proceedings in any manner and the respondent No.2
has no locus to file the application which was not clearly maintainable,
we are of the view that the impugned judgment of the High Court dated
09.09.2020 cannot be sustained.
       16. In the result, the appeal is allowed, judgment of the High Court      D
dated 09.09.2020 is set aside. The application filed by respondent No.2
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. We, however, make it clear that
none of the observations made by us in this order shall affect the criminal
trial. We, however, observe that it will be open for the trial court to
expedite the criminal trial, the offences being the offences under the           E
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, subject to any order passed by the
High Court in pending proceedings.


Kalpana K. Tripathy                                            Appeal allowed.
                                                                                 F




                                                                                 G




                                                                                 H