9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1991 (8) TMI 290 - SC - Indian LawsWhether any action under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to be initiated or not? Whether the laws are so petrified as to unable to respond to the challenges made will be dealt with in detail in our main judgment? Held that - Directions of Mr. Justice M.K. Chawla calling upon the CBI and the State to show cause as to why the proceedings initiated on the strength of the First Information Report dated 22.1.90 be not quashed, cannot be sustained. In the result, we agree with the first part of the Order 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 and accordingly the Show cause notice issued by him is quashed. In view of the above conclusions, all the proceedings initiated in pursuance of the First Information Report dated 22.1.90 relating to Crime No. RCI(A)/90-ACU-IV on the file of the Special Judge, Delhi including the issuance of the letter rogatory/request as they stand now, remain unaffected and they can be proceeded with in accordance with law.
Issues Involved:
1. Locus Standi of Mr. H.S. Chowdhary in filing the petition. 2. Validity of the public interest litigation under Article 51-A. 3. Right of political parties and other intervenors to seek impleadment. 4. Suo moto action by Justice M.K. Chawla. 5. Issuance of show cause notice by Justice M.K. Chawla. 6. Continuation of proceedings initiated on the strength of the FIR dated 22.1.90. Detailed Analysis: 1. Locus Standi of Mr. H.S. Chowdhary: The Court concluded that Mr. H.S. Chowdhary had no locus standi to file the petition under Article 51-A as a public interest litigant. He was not entitled to join the inquiry before the Special Court, which had directed the issuance of a letter rogatory/request to the Competent Judicial Authorities of Switzerland. Furthermore, he could not invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Sections 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, nor could he invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the First Information Report dated 22.1.90 and all other proceedings arising therefrom. 2. Validity of the Public Interest Litigation: The Court opined that the initiation of the proceedings by Mr. H.S. Chowdhary under Article 51-A of the Constitution of India did not fall within the true meaning and scope of public interest litigation. The Court emphasized that such proceedings should not be used as a proxy by individuals who are not directly affected or involved in the case. 3. Right of Political Parties and Other Intervenors: Consequently, the appellants, including Janata Dal, Communist Party of India (Marxist), and Indian Congress (Socialist), had no right to seek their impleadment or intervention. Similarly, Dr. P. Nalla Thampy Thera had no right to file the Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 114 of 1991 as a public interest litigant. The Court maintained that the involvement of these parties was unwarranted and did not serve the interests of justice. 4. Suo Moto Action by Justice M.K. Chawla: The Court held that the suo moto action taken by Justice M.K. Chawla, in exercising powers under Sections 397 and 401 read with Section 482 of the Code, based on convoluted and strained reasoning, could not be sustained. The direction to register a case under the title "Court on its motion v. State and CBI" was deemed inappropriate and unsupportable. 5. Issuance of Show Cause Notice: Following the above conclusion, the Court held that the directions issued by Justice M.K. Chawla, calling upon the CBI and the State to show cause why the proceedings initiated on the strength of the FIR dated 22.1.90 should not be quashed, could not be sustained. The show cause notice issued by him was quashed. 6. Continuation of Proceedings: The Court agreed with the first part of Justice M.K. Chawla's order dated 19.12.90, which held that Mr. H.S. Chowdhary and other intervening parties had no locus standi. However, it set aside the second part of the order where Justice Chawla had taken suo moto cognizance and issued a show cause notice. Consequently, all proceedings initiated in pursuance of the FIR dated 22.1.90, including the issuance of the letter rogatory/request, remained unaffected and could proceed in accordance with the law. Conclusion: - Criminal Appeal Nos. 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, and 309 of 1991 were dismissed. - Criminal Appeal No. 310 of 1991 filed by the Union of India against the order dated 5.9.90 of the High Court was dismissed. - Writ Petition No. 114 of 1991 was dismissed. - Criminal Appeal No. 311 of 1991 filed by the Union of India and CBI was allowed.
|
