2015 Supreme(SC) 952

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
H.L. Dattu, CJI., Arun Mishra, J.
Sanjiv Rajendra Bhatt – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
WRIT PETITION [CRIMINAL] NO.135 OF 2011 [With W.P. (Crl.) No.204/2011]
Decided On : 13-10-2015

IMPORTANT POINTS
A litigant not approaching the Court with clean hands is not entitled to any relief.
A litigant guilty of suppressio veri and suggestio falsi is not entitled to relief.
Once the charge sheet is filed, court has to proceed in accordance with law in the matter and investigation cannot be transferred at that stage. Investigation can, however, be transferred to another agency even after filing of charge sheet, but in exceptional case and the instant case is not such an exceptional case
Merely taking opinion of a person who is outsider to litigation before filing the reply in the court; or merely sending some representation to be submitted to the President and Prime Minister of India and other documents to an advocate-politician would neither undermine administration of justice nor would indicate criminal conspiracy. Actions interfering or obstructing in administration of justice in any manner constitute contempt of court.

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India – Article 32 – Petitioner keeping quiet about his alleged presence in meeting dated 27.2.2002 for 9 years – Despite claiming his presence in the meetings, trying to gather and garner proof thereof – Earlier expressing no faith in CBI and asking for investigation by SIT – Then making unwarranted and serious allegations against SIT appointed by Supreme Court whose performance has been appreciated by the Court – Petitioner having blemished antecedent in service career – Keeping close contacts and actively interacting with interested political parties and groups including NGOs with doubtful motives – Not approaching Court with clean hands – No relief can be granted. (Para 46)

       (2010) 2 SCC 114 – Relied upon

       (2009) 6 SCC 767; (2011) 12 SCC 302 – Referred

       (b) Constitution of India – Article 32 – Suppressio veri and suggestio falsi – Petitioner claiming to have come across information through e-mails of the then AAG suggesting leakage of information from SIT etc. suggesting larger conspiracy behind the Gidhara riot – Having such information in his hands as far back as 2009 and 2010, petitioner was duty bound to disclose the same to SIT in his meetings with it, or to the Nanavati Commission or to the Supreme Court when he filed a suo motu unsolicited affidavit in Jakia Jafri case – Not doing so – Disclosing the information only in 2011 when KD Panth filed complaint complaining that petitioner pressurized him for false affidavit and the AAG filed a complaint u/s 66 of IT Act, 2000 – Petitioner held guilty of suppressio veri and suggestio falsi – Petitioner asking for constituting a separate SIT for going into these two cases as he has no faith in State police – Plea not acceptable. (Para 48, 51)

       (c) Criminal investigation – Constitution of SIT – Complain of petitioner illegally obtaining affidavit of K.D.Panth – Charge sheet already filed in the case – Statements of witnesses already recorded – Presence of complainant at residence of petitioner at the time stated in FIR established – Laptop on which the affidavit was prepared forensically analysed and established – Charge sheet filed 4 years back not challenged – Petitioner not showing how the investigation was unfair – Once the charge sheet is filed, court has to proceed in accordance with law in the matter – Investigation can be transferred to another agency even after filing of charge sheet, but in exceptional case – Instant case is not such an exceptional case – SIT investigation not warranted – More so because accused has no right with reference to the manner of investigation or mode of prosecution. (Para 52, 53, 54, 61)

       (2008) 2 SCC 409; (1993) Supp 4 SCC 260; (2012) 8 SCC 106; (2014) 4 SCC 626; (1996) 11 SCC 253; (2010) 10 SCC 744; (1991) 3 SCC 756 – Relied upon

       (2010) 12 SCC 254; (2004) 4 SCC 158; (2010) 2 SCC 200; (2011) 5 SCC 79; (2012) 10 SCC 545; (1994) Supp 1 SCC 143; (1996) 2 SCC 199; (1998) 8 SCC 661; (2007) 1 SCC 110; (2011) 1 SCC 560; (2014) 2 SCC 687; (2014) 2 SCC 532; (2009) 6 SCC 342; (2011) 8 SCC 1; (2011) 9 SCC 182; (2013) 15 SCC 578 – Distinguished

       (d) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 2(c)(iii) and 20 – Merely taking opinion of a person who is outsider to litigation before filing the reply in the court – Would not undermine administration of justice – Not indicative of criminal conspiracy – Actions interfering or obstructing in administration of justice in any manner constitute contempt of court – Merely sending some representation to be submitted to the President and Prime Minister of India and other documents to an advocate-politician – Would not tantamount to criminal contempt unless and until it was intended to help the accused – Prayer for contempt of court filed after one year – Barred by limitation. (Para 63, 64, 65, 69, 70)

       (1996) 5 SCC 216; AIR 1953 SC 185 – Relied upon

       (1981) 2 SCC 577 – Distinguished

       Facts of the case:

       The petitioner, an IPS officer having come to know about disturbing unholy nexus of government functionaries in the Godhara incident tried to expose the same and made statements before the SIT appointed by the Supreme Court and the Nanavati Commission.

       As a result he has been implicated in several criminal cases. Being apprehensive that the conduct of these cases will not be fair and he will not get justice, the present writ petition has been filed for transfer of investigation of those cases to some independent investigating agency like CBI.

       Finding of the Court:

       All the petitions are liable to be dismissed.

       Result: All the petitions dismissed.