1992 (8) TMI 301 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Locus Standi of the petitioner.
2. Revisional and Inherent Powers of the High Court.
3. Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and its misuse.
4. Validity of FIR and investigation by CBI.
5. Suo Moto action by the High Court.

Summary:

1. Locus Standi of the petitioner:
The Court concluded that Mr. H.S. Chowdhary has no locus standi to file the petition under Article 51-A as a public interest litigant, to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court u/s 397 read with 401 of the CrPC, or to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court u/s 482 of the CrPC for quashing the FIR dated January 22, 1990, and all other proceedings arising therefrom. The Court emphasized that the initiation of the present proceedings by Mr. H.S. Chowdhary cannot come within the true meaning and scope of public interest litigation.

2. Revisional and Inherent Powers of the High Court:
The Court examined the suo moto power of the High Court in exercise of its powers u/s 190, 397, 401, and 482 of the CrPC. The Court held that the inherent powers conferred by Section 482 of the Code should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution and must be exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The Court found that Justice M.K. Chawla's suo moto action to quash the FIR and related proceedings was not justified and overstepped his jurisdiction.

3. Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and its misuse:
The Court reiterated the importance of PIL in providing access to justice for disadvantaged groups but cautioned against its misuse by busybodies or meddlesome interlopers. The Court emphasized that only a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of PIL will have locus standi, and vexatious petitions under the guise of PIL should be rejected at the threshold.

4. Validity of FIR and investigation by CBI:
The Court found that the FIR dated January 22, 1990, registered by the CBI disclosed a cognizable offence and that the investigation by the CBI was legitimate. The Court noted that the FIR contained detailed allegations of illegal gratification paid to Indian public servants by Before, a Swedish company, and that the investigation was in compliance with the law.

5. Suo Moto action by the High Court:
The Court quashed the later part of the impugned order dated December 19, 1990, by Justice M.K. Chawla, which took suo moto cognizance u/s 397, 401 read with 482 of the CrPC and issued a show-cause notice to the CBI and the State. The Court held that the suo moto action was based on convoluted and strained reasoning and could not be sustained.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the criminal appeals and writ petition challenging the validity of the FIR and the investigation by the CBI, upheld the first part of the order by Justice M.K. Chawla dismissing the petition on the ground of locus standi, and quashed the suo moto cognizance and show-cause notice issued by Justice M.K. Chawla.