2016 (3) TMI 1450 - HC - Indian Laws

Fake encounter - inherent power of the High Court for quashing the criminal proceedings against an offender who had settled the dispute with the victim - compoundable offence u/s section 320 of Indian Penal Code - Locus standi (the right or capacity to bring an action or to appear in a court/direct connection with the offence and only that person can file an application before court), to challenge the order - HELD THAT - In the instant case, the applicant has invoked the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to challenge the order of discharge dated 30.12.2014 whereby the learned Sessions Judge Gr. Bombay has discharged the respondent no. 1 of the offences under Sections 120B, 364, 365, 368, 341, 342, 384, 302, 218 r/w. 201 of IPC. It is not in dispute that the said order is not an interlocutory order and could be challenged by invoking the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 397 /401 of Cr.P.C. Hence, in the light of the law laid down by a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Madhu Limaye 1977 (10) TMI 111 - SUPREME COURT and which has been followed in Gian Singh and Mohit 2012 (9) TMI 1112 - SUPREME COURT , the powers under Section 482 cannot be resorted to in view of the said specific provision of the code for the redressal of the grievance particularly when the aggrieved party had already assailed the said order in revisional jurisdiction of this Court. The Applicant had sought to invoke the power under section 482 of Cr.P.C. mainly on the ground that the Respondent No. 1 through powerful network of forces at his command has prevailed upon the Rubabuddin Shaikh to withdraw the revision application. The Applicant has alleged that the withdrawal appears to be suspicious, under threat, inducement and promise - It is no doubt true that the powers under sections 482 and 483 of the Cr.P.C. are wide. However, it is well settled that these powers should be exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice or to prevent misuse of judicial mechanism or miscarriage of justice. In the instant case, Rubabuddin, the brother of the deceased who is an aggrieved party and at whose instance the crime was registered had by application dated 5.10.2015 which was supported by his affidavit, sought leave to withdraw the revision application as well the application for condonation of delay. Since said Rubabuddin was not represented by an advocate, no order was passed on the said application on the said date. On 6.10.2015 said Rubabuddin had remained present alongwith his counsel and had once again sought leave to withdraw the said applications. Locus standi (the right or capacity to bring an action or to appear in a court/direct connection with the offence and only that person can file an application before court) - HELD THAT - The present case does not involve the issue of locus standi of a third party / stranger for setting the criminal law in motion. The issue in the present case is whether the applicant, who is a total stranger to the proceedings can invoke the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to challenge the discharge order. Hence, the decisions in Antulay 1984 (2) TMI 317 - SUPREME COURT is not strictly applicable to the facts of the present case. In Sulochana Devi 1992 (11) TMI 295 - ORISSA HIGH COURT the Petitioner who was not a party to the proceedings had invoked the powers of the High Court under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to challenge the order of issuance of proclamation under section 82 of the Code and attachment of the property. Raising the issue of locus standi, preliminary objection was raised to the maintainability of the application at the behest of the Petitioner. The Orissa High Court after considering the scope of section 482 of the Cr.P.C. as well as the decisions of the Apex Court in Madhu Limaye, Simerjeet Singh 1977 (10) TMI 111 - SUPREME COURT and in the case of the Janata Dal V/s. H.S. Choudhary Ors. 1992 (8) TMI 301 - SUPREME COURT citation held that ordinarily, the aggrieved party, which is affected by any order has the right to seek redress by questioning the legality, validity or correctness of the order unless such party is a minor and in same person or is suffering from any other disability which law recognises as sufficient to permit another person e.g. next friend, to move the court in his behalf. Reverting to the case in hand, it is not in dispute that the applicant is neither a victim nor an aggrieved person. He is not in any manner connected with the proceedings pending before the learned Sessions Court Greater Bombay. The Applicant has not suffered any prejudice and has not demonstrated that his legal rights are impaired or any harm /injury is caused to him or is likely to be caused. The Applicant has thus not been able to demonstrate that his legal right has been invaded so as to give him locus standi to challenge the order. he Applicant who claims to be a socially responsible citizen has allegedly filed this application for preventing abuse of process of court. It is pertinent to note that though the alleged incident had occurred in the year 2005, and no case was registered against the respondent no. 1 and the other police officers, the applicant herein had not shown any interest to set the criminal law in motion. The said crime was registered only pursuant to the directions given by the Honourable Supreme Court in view of the letter of grievance made by Rubabuddin, the brother of the deceased. In the instant case, the State had not challenged the order of discharge. nonetheless the aggrieved person, Rubabuddin Shaikh, the brother of the deceased Shorabuddin had challenged the said order in revision application (st) 413 of 2015 which was filed along with the application for condonation of delay being application No. 355 of 2015. As stated earlier this Court has allowed the aggrieved person to withdraw the said application after being satisfied that the request for withdrawal was voluntary and that the same was not made under threat, pressure, inducement or promise. Hence, this is not one of those rare cases which brings about a situation which is an abuse of the process of the Court, which necessitates exercise of inherent jurisdiction. The application is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing and setting aside the discharge order dated 30.12.2014.
2. Directing an independent agency to investigate the circumstances of withdrawal by Rubabuddin Shaikh.
3. Allegations of suppression of material facts and approaching the court with unclean hands.
4. Maintainability of the application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
5. Locus standi of the applicant to file the application.
6. Exercise of inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing and Setting Aside the Discharge Order:
The applicant sought to quash the discharge order dated 30.12.2014, which discharged the respondent no. 1 from various IPC offences. The order was not challenged by the CBI but was contested by Rubabuddin Shaikh, the brother of the deceased, through a Criminal Revision Application. However, Rubabuddin later sought to withdraw this revision application.

2. Investigation of Withdrawal Circumstances:
The applicant alleged that Rubabuddin's withdrawal of the revision application was suspicious and possibly influenced by threats, inducement, or promises. The applicant, claiming to be a socially responsible citizen, sought an independent investigation into these circumstances.

3. Allegations of Suppression of Material Facts:
The respondent no. 1 argued that the applicant had suppressed material facts, particularly the dismissal of a similar application by Rajesh Kamble. The court, however, found that the applicant had not obtained any favorable order by suppressing this fact, thus distinguishing the case from precedents cited by the respondent.

4. Maintainability of the Application:
The court examined whether the application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was maintainable, given the availability of a specific provision for redressal under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. The court concluded that the inherent powers under Section 482 should not be invoked when a specific remedy is available, particularly since the aggrieved party had already filed a revision application.

5. Locus Standi of the Applicant:
The court deliberated on whether the applicant, who was a third party and not directly aggrieved, had the standing to file the application. It was noted that while criminal law allows any person to set it in motion, the right to participate in proceedings is generally restricted to the State and aggrieved persons. The court found that the applicant, being a stranger to the proceedings, lacked the locus standi to challenge the discharge order.

6. Exercise of Inherent Powers:
The court emphasized that the inherent powers under Section 482 should be exercised sparingly and only to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice. Given that the aggrieved party, Rubabuddin, had voluntarily withdrawn his revision application after ample opportunity to reconsider, the court found no merit in invoking its inherent powers. The applicant's sudden interest in the matter, particularly after a decade and following the dismissal of a similar application by another individual, indicated a lack of bona fides and potential ulterior motives.

Conclusion:
The application was dismissed on the grounds that the applicant lacked locus standi, the inherent powers of the court should not be invoked when a specific remedy is available, and there was no abuse of process or miscarriage of justice necessitating the exercise of such powers. The court also noted the applicant's delayed and selective interest in the case, further questioning the bona fides of the application.