SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.S. CHAUHAN & SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.
KISHORE SAMRITE -Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. -Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.1406 of 2012
Decided On : 18-10-2012.
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 21 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -Sections 120B, 181, 191, 211, 469, 499 and 500 – Investigation – Payment - Petition was filed on instructions who has also sworn affidavit in support of writ petition which contained wild allegations insinuation against Gandhi and questions virtue and modesty of a young girl of years court dismiss this writ petition with cost of Fifty laces - Out of cost amount Twenty five lacs shall be paid to Km and Twenty lacs to Gandhi, opposite part cost amount shall be deposited within period of one month with Registrar of this Court failing which Registrar shall take necessary action for recovery of amount as land revenue - Court also record our special note of appreciation for Singh Director General of police highly decorated police officer for producing alleged détentes within time frame as directed in order - Thus for all promptness and sincerity shown in midst of serious law and order problems all over State on account of some agitation in obeying and complying with directions court direct payment five lacs towards reward–Held, Director General of Police statement three petitioners in Writ Petition stand before Court its report and contradictory stand taken by next friend in Writ Petition court prima facie are of view that allegations against respondent in regard to alleged incident of rape on December and the alleged detention of petitioners are without substance and there is not even an iota of evidence before Court to validly form an opinion to contrary - In fact as per petitioners allegedly detained persons they were never detained by any person at any point of time Court against petitioner in Writ Petition and all other persons responsible for abuse of process of Court making false statement in pleadings filing false affidavits and committing such other offences as Investigating Agency may find during investigation - Shall submit its report to court of competent jurisdiction as expeditiously as possible and not later than six months from date of passing of this order - These directions are without prejudice to rights of respective parties to take such legal remedy as may be available to them in accordance with law - Court also make it clear that Court of competent jurisdiction or would not in any way be influenced by observations made in this judgment or even judgment of High Court - All pleas and contentions which may be raised by parties are left open – Appeal disposed
JUDGMENT
Swatanter Kumar, J.-Challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated 7th March, 2011 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench). The operative part of the order reads as under :
“In view of all the aforesaid and particularly for the reasons that the writ petition No.111 (H/C) of 2011 was filed on the instructions of Kishor Samrite (who has also sworn the affidavit in support of the writ petition) which contained wild allegations/insinuation against Shri Rahul Gandhi and questions the virtue and modesty of a young girl of 22 years Km. Kirti Singh, we dismiss this writ petition with a cost of Rs.50,00,000/- (Fifty lacs). Out of the cost amount, Rs.25,00,000/- (Twenty five lacs) shall be paid to Km. Kirti Singh and Rs.20,00,000/- (Twenty lacs) to Shri Rahul Gandhi, opposite part no.6. The cost amount shall be deposited within a period of one month with the Registrar of this Court, failing which the Registrar shall take necessary action for recovery of the amount as land revenue. We also record our special note of appreciation for Shri Karamveer Singh, Director General of police, U.P. (a highly decorated police officer), for producing the alleged detenues within the time frame as directed in the order. Thus, for all the promptness and sincerity shown, in themidst of serious law and order problems all over the State on account of some agitation in obeying and complying with the directions, we direct payment of Rs.5,00,000/- (five lacs) towards a reward to the DGP. We also record our appreciation for Shri Jyotindra Misra, learned Advocate General and the State Government for showing concern in this matter. We also direct the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, to register case against Kishor Samrite, the websites referred to in Writ Petition No.111 (H/C) of 2011 and all other persons who are found involved in the plot, if any, hatched in order to frame up Shri Rahul Gandhi, Member of Parliament from Amethi. We also appreciate Shri Gajendra Pal singh, author of Writ Petition No.125(H/C) of 2011 for approaching this Court in order to save the reputation of Shri Rahul Gandhi and the family of alleged detenues at the hands of vested interests responsible for filing Writ Petition No.111 (H/C) of 2011. Till the investigation continues and the websites in question are not cleared by the CBI, their display in India shall remain banned. The Director, CBI, shall ensure compliance of this order forthwith. He shall also prepare a list of such other websites which are involved in display of scandalous informations about the functionaries holding high public offices and submit a report in respect thereof on the next date of hearing. Thus, writ petition No.125 (H/C) of 2011 is partly disposed of to the extent insofar as it relates to production of the alleged detenues. However, it shall remain pending in respect of notice issued to the Registrar General Allahabad High Court and for the submission of report by the CBI as directed hereinabove. The matter shall remain part heard. List the matter on 11.04.2011 for further hearing. The Registrar of this Court shall issue copy of this order to all the concerned parties including the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, for immediate compliance.”
2. Challenge to the above impugned order, inter alia, but primarily is on the following grounds :
(i) The Court could not have called for the records of Writ Petition No.111 of 2011. Consequently it lacked inherent jurisdiction to deal with and decide the said writ petition. Furthermore, no order was passed by the competent authority, i.e., the Chief Justice of the High Court transferring that writ petition to the Bench dealing with Writ Petition No.125 of 2011.
(ii) The Bench showed undue haste and has not dealt with Writ Petition No.125 of 2011 in accordance with the prescribed procedure.
(iii) The order was passed without notice and grant of appropriate hearing to the present appellan
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.