2022 (9) TMI 1470 - SC - Indian Laws

Seeking recall of Order - victims have compromised their claims with the accused - locus standi of the appellants - effect of the compromise entered into between the de facto complainant and 13 named victims on the one hand and the four accused on the other hand - non- inclusion in the charge sheet of the offences under the P.C. Act. Locus standi - HELD THAT - Even according to the Investigating Officer, persons who claim to have paid money, but did not receive orders of appointment, were not the only victims. Persons who were more meritorious, but who did not get selected, on account of being edged out by candidates who paid money and got selected, are also victims of the alleged corrupt practices, if those allegations are eventually proved. Shri P. Dharamaraj, who is the appellant in one of these appeals, claims to be a candidate who participated in the selection, but could not make it - Even the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents could not contest the position that a victim is entitled to file an appeal against the impugned order of the High Court. If persons who participated in the selection process but who could not make it to the final list of selected candidates on account of the alleged corrupt practices adopted by those in power are not victims, we do not know who else could be a victim. We cannot shy away from the fact that candidates, who are selected and appointed to posts in the Government/public corporations by adopting corrupt practices, are eventually called upon to render public service. It is needless to say that the quality of public service rendered by such persons will be inversely proportionate to the corrupt practices adopted by them. Therefore, the public, who are recipients of these services, also become victims, though indirectly, because the consequences of such appointments get reflected sooner or later in the work performed by the appointees. Hence, to say that the appellants have no locus standi, is to deny the existence of what is obvious. Effect of the compromise and the non inclusion of the offences under the P.C. Act - HELD THAT - It is clear from the march of law that the Court has to go slow even while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.PC or Article 226 of the Constitution in the matter of quashing of criminal proceedings on the basis of a settlement reached between the parties, when the offences are capable of having an impact not merely on the complainant and the accused but also on others - As seen from the final report filed in this case and the counter affidavit filed by the I.O., persons who have adopted corrupt practices to secure employment in the Transport Corporation fall under two categories namely, (i) those who paid money and got orders of appointment; and (ii) those who paid money but failed to secure employment. If persons belonging to the 2nd category are allowed to settle their dispute by taking refund of money, the same would affix a seal of approval on the appointment of persons belonging to the 1st category. Therefore, the High Court ought not to have quashed the criminal proceedings on the basis of the compromise. It is needless to point out that corruption by a public servant is an offence against the State and the society at large. The Court cannot deal with cases involving abuse of official position and adoption of corrupt practices, like suits for specific performance, where the refund of the money paid may also satisfy the agreement holder. Therefore we hold that the High Court was completely in error in quashing the criminal complaint. Non- inclusion in the final report, of the offences under the P.C. Act - HELD THAT - We have provided a gist of the contents of such counter affidavit elsewhere in this judgment. We are constrained to say that even a novice in criminal law would not have left the offences under the P.C. Act, out of the final report. The attempt of the I.O. appears to be of one, willing to strike but afraid to wound - As a matter of fact, the State ought to have undertaken a comprehensive investigation into the entire scam, without allowing the accused to fish out one case as if it was a private money dispute. The appeals are allowed and the impugned order of the High Court is set aside. The criminal complaint is restored to file.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Locus standi of the appellants.
2. Effect of the compromise entered into between the de facto complainant and 13 named victims on the one hand and the four accused on the other hand.
3. Non-inclusion in the charge-sheet of the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act (P.C. Act).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Locus Standi:
The respondents' preliminary objection to the appellants' locus standi was rejected. The court noted that victims of the alleged corrupt practices included not only those who paid money but did not receive appointment orders but also more meritorious candidates who did not get selected due to the corrupt practices. The court emphasized that the public, as recipients of services rendered by those appointed through corrupt means, are also victims. The decision in Sanjay Tiwari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh was distinguished as it involved an application to expedite a trial by a person not connected with the criminal proceedings. The court highlighted that the definition of "victim" under Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C. includes those who suffered loss or injury due to the act or omission for which the accused is charged. Hence, the appellants, being affected by the alleged corruption, had the locus standi to challenge the High Court's order.

2. Effect of the Compromise:
The High Court quashed the criminal complaint based on a compromise between the complainant, victims, and accused, despite recognizing that the offences included in the final report were not compoundable. The Supreme Court referred to precedents such as Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, which distinguished the power to quash criminal proceedings from the power to compound offences. The court emphasized that heinous and serious offences, especially those involving corruption and abuse of official position, cannot be quashed based on a compromise as they have a serious impact on society. The court held that the High Court erred in quashing the complaint, noting that allowing a compromise in such cases would affix a seal of approval on the corrupt appointments, thereby affecting the quality of public service.

3. Non-inclusion of Offences under the P.C. Act:
The court criticized the Investigating Officer (I.O.) for not including offences under the P.C. Act in the final report despite clear indications of corruption in the complaint. The court pointed out that the modus operandi described in the counter affidavit filed by the I.O. in a connected writ petition clearly pointed to corrupt practices involving the Transport Minister and his associates. The court directed the I.O. to proceed under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. to file a further report based on the observations made. Additionally, the Special Court was directed to exercise power under Section 216 of the Cr.P.C. if there was any reluctance on the part of the State/I.O.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the criminal complaint. The court directed the I.O. to file a further report and advised the Special Court to proceed on the merits of the case. The court also suggested that the State take steps to vacate any stay orders in related cases involving offences under the P.C. Act. The court refrained from passing orders on the prayer for constituting a Special Investigation Team or appointing a Special Public Prosecutor, expressing hope that the State would take necessary actions based on the court's observations.