2022 (2) TMI 1400 - SCH - Indian Laws

Seeking quashing of Case Crime No. 540 of 2019 registered at P.S. Hazratganj District Lucknow Uttar Pradesh - petitioners have not been named as accused in the crime - HELD THAT - The petitioners not being named as accused in the said crime or the case now registered by the CBI on the basis of the said crime cannot be permitted to ask for quashing of the proceedings concerning some other persons (accused) - it is not required to examine the correctness of the relief claimed under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code at the instance of the petitioners herein. This special leave petition is disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
- Quashing of Case Crime No. 540 of 2019
- Petitioners not named as accused in the crime
- Relief claimed under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code
- Investigating Agency (CBI) naming the petitioners in connection with the offense
- Advance notice before proceeding against the petitioners
- Lookout notice issued against the petitioners by local police
- Disposal of special leave petition

Quashing of Case Crime No. 540 of 2019:
The petitioners sought the quashing of Case Crime No. 540 of 2019 registered at P.S. Hazratganj, District Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. However, since the petitioners were not named as accused in the said crime, the Supreme Court ruled that they lacked the locus standi to seek the quashing of the FIR or the case under investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) arising from the mentioned crime. Therefore, the relief of quashing could not be granted to the petitioners in this scenario.

Petitioners not named as accused:
Given that the petitioners were not named as accused in the crime or the subsequent case registered by the CBI based on the crime, the Court held that the petitioners could not request the quashing of proceedings concerning other accused individuals. The Court emphasized that the petitioners' lack of involvement as accused in the case prevented them from seeking such relief, thereby highlighting the importance of being directly implicated in the matter to pursue quashing proceedings.

Relief claimed under Section 438 of CrPC:
The Court explicitly stated that it did not intend to assess the correctness of the relief claimed under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the petitioners. This decision was based on the petitioners' non-involvement as accused in the crime under investigation, emphasizing the necessity of being named by the Investigating Agency (CBI) to seek appropriate remedies under the mentioned section.

Investigating Agency naming the petitioners:
The Court directed that if the Investigating Officer of the CBI intended to proceed against the petitioners in connection with the offense under investigation, they must provide a 48 hours' advance notice to the petitioners. This notice was deemed necessary to allow the petitioners to seek appropriate remedies once they were named by the Investigating Agency, safeguarding their rights in the investigative process.

Advance notice before proceeding against the petitioners:
To protect the petitioners' interests, the Court mandated the Investigating Officer of the CBI to issue a 48 hours' advance notice before taking any action against the petitioners. This provision aimed at ensuring that the petitioners had sufficient time to seek legal recourse and prepare their defense once they were formally implicated in the investigation.

Lookout notice issued by local police:
The Court clarified that a lookout notice issued against the petitioners was by the local police (Uttar Pradesh Police) investigating the crime, which had lapsed over time. Consequently, any petitions challenging the said lookout notice were deemed irrelevant for consideration, suggesting that such matters could be raised before the High Court where the petitions were pending for appropriate resolution.

Disposal of special leave petition:
Ultimately, the special leave petition was disposed of by the Supreme Court based on the peculiar facts of the case and the response filed by the respondents. The Court's decision encompassed various aspects, including the lack of locus standi of the petitioners, the issuance of advance notice by the Investigating Officer, and the clarification regarding the lookout notice issued by the local police. Additionally, pending applications were also disposed of as part of the overall judgment.