Sanjai Tiwari v. the State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
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.
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 Utt ar Pradesh
commenced an inquiry on a complaint filed by one R.K. Choudhary.
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/
2006 was registered against the appellant. Writ Petition No.572 of 2006
was filed by the appellant in which the High Court stayed the or der
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
preliminary investigation by CBI. Writ Petition No.45047 of 2005 filed
by the appellant was dismissed due to non-appearance of counsel o n
29.01.2020. After which charge-sheet dated 23.05.2020 was filed by
the Vigilance Department against the appellant before t he 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
969
04.08.2020 seeking direction to Special Judge to expedite and conclude
Special Trial No.520/2020. Respondent No.2 in his appl ication 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
filing this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for any personal
interest. He or any of his relations are not going to be be nefited
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
opted by the accused persons. The Vigilance Department compl eted
the investigation after about 14 years and still the accused p ersons are
trying to get away from the charges. The aforesaid application filed by
respondent No.2 came before the High Court for consi deration on
09.09.2020 which application stood disposed of by the following order:
“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/
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
application stands disposed of directing the Court concerne d 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.”
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 t o the
SANJAI TIWARI v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
appellant who was an accused in the trial and was i mpleaded 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
stayed by the High Court for entire period due to which any cha rge-
sheet could be filed, which fact was not brought into the noti ce of the
High Court when the order impugned was passed. It is submitte d 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
restoration of Writ Petition No.45047/2005 on 15.06.2020.
7. Learned counsel for the State submits that all crimin al trials
where offences involved are under the Prevention of Corruption A ct
have to be held on day to day basis and no exception can be taken to the
order passed by the High Court.
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.
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
framed by the trial court as on date.
11. It is well settled that criminal trial where offence s 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 sett led that the High
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 wit h
971
initiation of criminal proceeding against the appellant. Respondent No.2
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 accordanc e 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 have filed an application either before
the trial court or in any other court seeking direction as pr ayed by
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 proc eedings 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
CBI had registered FIR under the IPC as well as under the P revention
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 nece ssary
evidence which can be collected in Switzerland pass ed order on
05.02.1990 which is to the following effect:
“In the result, the application of the CBI is allowed to the
extent that a request to conduct the necessary investigati on and
to collect necessary evidence which can be collecte d in
Switzerland and to the extent directed in this order shall be made
to the Competent Judicial Authorities of the Confederation of
Switzerland through filing of the requisite/proper undertaki ng
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
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 diffe rent
parties challenging the said order including H.S. Chowdhary. This Court
SANJAI TIWARI v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
while dismissing the appeals filed by the H.S. Choudhary and othe rs
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 regis tered
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
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
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 Cou rt
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
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 extraordi nary
jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC
for quashing the First Information Report dated 22.1.90 and all
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 Orde r
dated 19.12.90 of Mr. Justice M.K. Chawla holding that
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 a nd
accordingly the show cause notice issued by him is quashed.”
973
14. This Court in the above case laid down that 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 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
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 norma lly 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 w ho was not
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
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 offe nces under the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, subject to any order passed by the
High Court in pending proceedings.
Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeal allowed.
SANJAI TIWARI v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]