SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J. CHELAMESWAR, A.K. SIKRI, JJ.
RAJIB RANJAN & ORS. – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
R. VIJAYKUMAR – RESPONDENTS
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S).729-732 OF 2010
Decided on: 14-10-2014
(2007) 4 SCC 766 – Relied upon
(b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 197 – A public servant entering into criminal conspiracy or indulging in criminal misconduct while discharging his official duties – Such misdemeanor not to be treated as an act in discharge of official duties – provisions of section 197 of the Code will not be attracted. (Para 14)
(2007) 4 SCC 766; (1993) 2 SCC 567; SLP (Crl.) No.5453 of 2007; (1997) 5 SCC 326 – Relied upon
(c) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XXIII Rule 1; Order IX Rule 8 and Order IX Rule 9 – Res judicata – Withdrawal of a suit operates as res judicata – Further, dismissal of suit under Order IX Rule 8 bars fresh suit under Order IX Rule 9. (Para 16)
(d) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 – Respondent not fulfilling conditions of tender despite repeated reminders – Reference produced from JSEB found to be wrong – Respondent’s performance certified by JSEB to be not satisfactory – Tender rejected and documents returned – Suit filed by respondent dismissed for non-prosecution – Writ petition thereagainst dismissed with cost followed by dismissal of SLP – Thereafter respondent filing criminal complaint alleging conspiracy and forgery – An attempt to convert case of civil nature into criminal prosecution – Not bona fide – Amounts to misuse and abuse of the process of law – Criminal proceedings ought to be quashed. (Para 16, 18)
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; (2006) 6 SCC 736; (2007) 12 SCC 1 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
A complaint was filed under Sections 120-B, 468, 420 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the said complaint and summoned the appellants. The appellants (who were arrayed as accused Nos.3, 4, 5 and 6) challenged the said summoning orders and sought quashment of the complaint by filing petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure inasmuch as according to them the allegations in the complaint did not make out any offence under the aforesaid provisions of the IPC; the complainant had neither any locus standi nor any legal status to prefer any such complaint; the appellants being public servants and Gazetted officers of the State Government of Chhattisgarh, no such criminal proceedings could be initiated against them without prior sanction from the appointing authority as per Section 197 of the Cr.P.C.; and the complaint was blatant misuse and abuse of the process of Court which was filed by the complainant after exhausting the civil remedies in which he had failed.
The High Court, after examination of the matter, has not found any merit in any of the aforesaid contentions raised by the appellants and, consequently, dismissed their petitions.
Finding of the Court:
This is an attempt to convert case of civil nature into criminal prosecution and amounts to misuse and abuse of the process of law. Criminal proceedings ought to be quashed.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
A.K. Sikri, J.
These appeals are filed by four appellants, who were arrayed as accused persons in the complaint case No.183/2007 filed by the respondent herein before the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tiruchirapalli, Tamil Nadu. The complaint has been filed under Sections 120-B, 468, 420 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC'). The learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the said complaint and summoned the appellants. The appellants (who were arrayed as accused Nos.3, 4, 5 and 6) challenged the said summoning orders and sought quashment of the complaint by filing petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Cr.P.C.) inasmuch as according to them the allegations in the complaint did not make out any offence under the aforesaid provisions of the IPC; the complainant had neither any locus standi nor any legal status to prefer any such complaint; the appellants being public servants and Gazetted officers of the State Government of Chhattisgarh, no such criminal proceedings could be initiated against them without prior sanction from the appointing authority as per Section 197 of the Cr.P.C.; and the complaint was blatant misuse and abuse of the process of Court which was filed by the complainant after exhausting the civil remedies in which he had failed. The High Court, after examination of the matter, has not found any merit in any of the aforesaid contentions raised by the appellants and, consequently, dismissed their petitions.
2. Before we advert to the submissions of the appellants, which are mirror image of what was argued before the High Court, it would be appropriate to traverse through the relevant facts and events leading to the filing of the said complaint by the complainant. These are as under:
The Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board (for short 'the CSEB') issued an advertisement inviting tender (NIT) bearing No. T 136/2004 dated 02.06.2004 for its work at Hasedeo Thermal Power Station (Korba West) towards Designing, Engineering, Testing, Supply, Erection & Commission of HEA Ignition system. The applications received thereunder were required to be processed in three stages successively namely; Part-I (EMD); Part-II (Techno-Commercial Criteria) and Part III (Price Bid). The respondent herein submitted an application on 26.08.2004 as Chief Executive Officer of M/s Control Electronics India (CEI) requesting for Tender Document. The application was rejected on the ground that it was accompanied by incomplete documents i.e. non-submission of documentary evidence of past performance and experience of the respondent. The respondent made a complaint dated 06.09.2004 against appellant No. 3 herein alleging that the Tender Documents were not issued to the respondent. It was followed by several letters requesting for issuance of Tender Documents. He was informed that rather than pressurising the appellants here or other officials, he should furnish documents as per pre-qualifying condition of the Tender. In response thereto, vide his letter dated 05.11.2004, the respondent filed a copy of purchase order dated 28.01.2002 placed by Jharkhand State Electricity Board (for short 'the JSEB') and assured to supply other documentary evidence (performance report) subsequently. On such assurance, the Tender Documents were issued to the respondent. The respondent vide his letter dated 08.12.2004, mentioned that the Performance Report was enclosed in Part-II. However, the said report was not found enclosed and even after repeated requests from the CSEB to furnish documents, respondent did not fulfill the necessary requirement. As the respondent did not submit the necessary documents, the CSEB sought the information from the Chief Engineer of JSEB (arrayed in the complaint as accused No.2) vide letter dated 10.12.2004 about the performance of the respondent. Appellant No.2 herein was also deputed to get the desired information from JSEB. After meeting the officials of JSEB, appe
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.