2020 (12) TMI 1380 - SC - Indian Laws

Error in entertaining the application Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure - locus standi to file a petition Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure. It is submitted that the High Court without issuing any notice to the Appellant who was an Accused in the trial and was impleaded as Respondent No. 2 in 482 Code of Criminal Procedure application passed the order. HELD THAT - It is well settled that criminal trial where offences involved are under the Prevention of Corruption Act have to be conducted and concluded at the earliest since the offences under Prevention of Corruption Act are offences which affect not only the Accused but the entire society and administration. It is also well settled that the High Court in appropriate cases can very well Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure or in any other proceeding can always direct trial court to expedite the criminal trial and issue such order as may be necessary. But the present is a case where proceeding initiated by Respondent No. 2 does not appear to be a bona fide proceeding. Respondent No. 2 is in no way connected with initiation of criminal proceeding against the Appellant. The present is not a case where prosecution or even the employer of the Accused have filed an application either before the trial court or in any other court seeking direction as prayed by Respondent No. 2 in his application Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure. Locus of a third party to challenge the criminal proceedings or to seek relief in respect of criminal proceedings of Accused - HELD THAT - The issue had been dealt with by this Court in THE JANATA DAL AND OTHERS ETC. VERSUS HS. CHOWDHARY AND OTHERS ETC. 1991 (8) TMI 290 - SUPREME COURT . In the above case the CBI had registered FIR under the Indian Penal Code as well as under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 against 14 Accused. On an application filed by the CBI the learned trial Judge allowing the application to the extent that a request to conduct necessary investigation and to collect necessary evidence which can be collected in Switzerland holding that the application of the CBI is allowed to the extent that a request to conduct the necessary investigation and to collect necessary evidence which can be collected in Switzerland and to the extent directed in this order shall be made to the Competent Judicial Authorities of the Confederation of Switzerland through filing of the requisite/proper undertaking required by the Swiss law and assurance for reciprocity. Respondent No. 2 has no locus in the present case to file application Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure asking the Court to expedite the hearing in criminal trial. The application filed by Respondent No. 2 Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure is dismissed - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to High Court order directing expedited criminal trial based on an application filed by a third party without locus standi.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Supreme Court questioned the High Court's order directing the trial court to expedite the criminal trial based on an application filed by Respondent No. 2, who had no direct connection to the proceedings. The Appellant was accused in a case involving various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The High Court's order was issued without notice to the Appellant, leading to the appeal challenging the jurisdiction of Respondent No. 2 to file the application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Supreme Court examined the facts and highlighted that the criminal trial had not progressed significantly, with charges yet to be framed as of the hearing date. While acknowledging the importance of expediting trials involving the Prevention of Corruption Act due to their societal impact, the Court emphasized that applications from unrelated third parties, like Respondent No. 2, should not interfere in the legal process. The Court referred to a previous case to establish that only parties directly involved in a criminal case should raise concerns or challenge proceedings, not third parties under the guise of public interest litigation.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court concluded that Respondent No. 2 lacked the necessary locus standi to file the application seeking expedited trial proceedings. The Court set aside the High Court's order and dismissed Respondent No. 2's application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, the Court clarified that its decision should not impact the ongoing criminal trial, leaving room for the trial court to expedite proceedings in accordance with the law and any High Court directives in place.

This judgment underscores the importance of maintaining the integrity of legal proceedings and ensuring that only relevant parties with a direct interest in a case can influence the course of a trial. It establishes a precedent that third parties without proper standing should not interfere in criminal proceedings, especially when seeking expedited trials in cases involving serious offenses like those under the Prevention of Corruption Act.