Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipak Misra, A.M. Khanwilkar, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, JJ.
Ram Kishan Fauji – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana and Ors. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4288 OF 2017 (arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 15362 of 2016)
Decided on : 21-03-2017
(2013) 3 SCC 117; AIR 1965 SC 1595 – Relied upon
(b) High Court Rules – Letters Patent – Clause 10 – Appeal to a Division Bench from a single Judge – When an appeal is not excluded and – When Legislature had not taken away a right to appeal – Intra-court appeal against decision of the learned Single Judge under Article 227 expressly barred (Para 24, 27, 36)
(1965) 2 SCR 756; 1986 (Supp.) SCC 401 – Relied upon
(c) High Court Rules – Letters Patent – Clause 10 – Criminal proceeding – Characteristics – Imposition of sentence and binding down persons who are a danger to the maintenance of peace and order – Character of the proceeding – Not depended upon nature of the tribunal but upon nature of right violated and relief claimed – Determinative factors are nature of jurisdiction invoked by the party and true nature of the order passed by Single Judge. (Para 34, 38)
(1966) 1 SCR 190; (2009) 10 SCC 584; (1994) 3 SCC 569; (2009) 4 SCC 437; (2014) 4 SCC 453 – Relied upon
(2006) 7 SCC 496; (2008) 15 SCC 233; 1993 Supp (1) SCC 11; 2000 (2) ALT 448 (F.B.); AIR 1992 SC 604; (1997) 2 SCC 397: 1997 SCC (Crl.) 415; (1999) 3 SCC 259, 1999 SCC (Crl.) 401; (2000) 1 Gujarat Law Reports 206; (1998) 4 SCC 409; AIR 1988 SC 1531; 1978 GLR 1047 (FB); 2011 (125) DRJ 241 (FB); 208 (2014) DLT 468 (DB); 2006 Cri.LJ 3193 – Referred
AIR 1955 SC 233; AIR 1954 SC 440 – Distinguished
(d) High Court Rules – Letters Patent – Clause 10 – Judicial orders passed by subordinate courts and assailable in appeal only under Article 227 – No intra-court appeal lies against such appeal. (Para 43, 45)
(2015) 5 SCC 423; (2015) 9 SCC 1; (1999) 6 SCC 275 – Relied upon
(2003) 6 SCC 675; AIR 1967 SC 1; (2006) 7 SCC 496; (2009) 10 SCC 584; – Referred
(e) Clause 10 r/w Article 226, Constitution of India – Writ petitioner seeking to avoid criminal investigation – Single Judge quashing recommendation of Lokayukta – Also quashing the FIR registered as consequence of the recommendations – Orders passed under Article 226 – Not in a civil proceeding – Nature of proceeding being the litmus test – Held, LPA was not maintainable. (Para 65, 66)
Facts of the case:
The Chief Secretary to the Government of Haryana made a reference to the Lokayukta, Haryana to enquire into the allegations, namely, (i) whether the allegations of bribery levelled in the alleged Compact Disc (CD) are correct, (ii) whether Change of Land Use (CLU)/Licence was granted in pursuance of these allegations, and (iii) whether by such act, any illegality was committed.
The Lokayukta, Haryana, issued notice to the appellant.
FIR No. 10/2014 was registered at P.S. State Vigilance Bureau, Panchkula on 04.12.2014 under Sections 7 and 8 of the 1988 Act.
The single Judge of the High Court quashed the orders of the Lokayukta and the FIR.
The Division Bench condoned the delay of 85 days in filing the appeal and stayed the operation of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. It further directed to constitute a SIT.
Finding of the Court:
LPA was not maintainable.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Dipak Misra, J.
Leave granted.
2. The Chief Secretary to the Government of Haryana in exercise of power under Section 8(1) of the Haryana Lokayukta Act, 2002 (for brevity, “the Act”) made a reference to the Lokayukta, Haryana to enquire into the allegations, namely, (i) whether the allegations of bribery levelled in the alleged Compact Disc (CD) are correct, (ii) whether Change of Land Use (CLU)/Licence was granted in pursuance of these allegations, and (iii) whether by such act, any illegality was committed. The said reference was registered as Complaint No. 773 of 2013 in the office of the Lokayukta, Haryana.
3. Acting on the reference made by the Chief Secretary, the office of the Lokayukta issued a public notice requesting the public in general to send any such material including Video Compact Disc (VCD) connected with the subject in issue. Apart from the public notice, communications were sent to various departments of the Government, television channels and newspapers for furnishing all materials to find out the allegations of corruption against the persons who have been named in the complaint.
4. As the facts would unfold, the Lokayukta, Haryana, issued notice to the appellant in exercise of power under Section 14 of the Act to offer his explanation. In pursuance of the said communication, the appellant filed a reply and the Lokayukta granted him time to place on record his evidence in the form of an affidavit. When the matter stood thus, on 16.01.2014, two persons allegedly conducted a sting operation and filed their affidavits before the Lokayukta. The appellant, in the meantime, got the CD examined from M/s Truth Labs, Bangalore and also got the forensic examination of the audio and a report was submitted on 20.01.2014 opining, as averred, that the audio and video recording in the earlier CD was not continuous and the recording did not appear to be authentic. Be that as it may, on weighing the material brought on record, the Lokayukta thought it appropriate to recommend for registration of FIR for offences punishable under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, “the 1988 Act”) and investigation by a senior competent officer of impeccable integrity.
5. At this stage, it is necessary to mention that the appellant had preferred Civil Writ Petition No. 4554/2014 (O&M) praying for issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the impugned orders dated 20.01.2014 and 11.02.2014 passed by the respondent No. 2 whereby it had recommended registration of a case against the petitioner therein under the provisions of the 1988 Act and further for issue of a writ or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondent No. 1 from initiating any consequential proceeding on the basis of the impugned orders. The grounds asserted for the assail were that there was no verification of the genuinity of the alleged VCD and that the action taken was perverse, illegal, arbitrary and violative of the provisions of the Act.
6. The High Court, vide order dated 14.03.2014, directed the respondent State to inquire into the authenticity of the CD in question and file a status report in the Court and further directed that the State shall be bound by the judgment of Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2014) 2 SCC 1 with reference to the preliminary enquiry to be conducted in respect of corruption cases. A reply was filed before the High Court on 03.12.2014 and FIR No. 10/2014 was registered at P.S. State Vigilance Bureau, Panchkula on 04.12.2014 under Sections 7 and 8 of the 1988 Act. Certain other documents were brought on record before the learned Single Judge of the High Court and eventually. vide judgment dated 27.02.2015, the learned Single Judge referred to various aspects such as the facts that led to the complaint before the Lokayukta, the findings of the Lokayukta, the initial endeavour by the High Court to gather details of the authenticity of the CD, the con
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
