IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Aggrieved person should not be denied his right to question initiation of criminal proceedings.
(2) Whistle blower is an aggrieved person.

JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

1. Briefly stated the facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the appellant’s sister had started a firm in the name of M/s. Jubilee Capital Market Services at Ulhasnagar for sale and purchase of shares and other related financial services. The appellant who was otherwise employed with the Punjab National Bank was helping his sister in the firm. One Mr. Kishore K. Keswani started investing in shares and stocks through the aforesaid firm in March, 1992. During 1993, the share market crashed resulting in very heavy losses to all investors. Mr. Keswani, however, blamed the appellant for the loss of approximately rupees 13 lakhs allegedly suffered by him. Thereafter, the said Mr. Keswani instituted as many as 10 cases against the appellant and his family members directly or with the help of others out of which one was a civil suit and the remaining 9 were criminal cases. In six of the criminal cases arrest warrants were issued against the appellant and his family members and they were illegally arrested.

2. The case of the appellant is that there was an illegal racket in the State of Gujarat whereby some unscrupulous lawyers in connivance with court officials were procuring arrest warrants against the alleged accused without following the procedure prescribed by law and without verifying whether there was any truth in the complaint. The appellant informed one Mr. Mahatre, a journalist about the manner in which he was arrested. Shri Mahatre decided to carry out a sting operation. He filed a complaint and managed to obtain arrest warrants against a sitting Judge of the Bombay High Court, the Home Minister of Maharashtra, 3 M.L.As., a spokesman of a national party and a journalist. After obtaining these warrants Shri Mahatre lodged the same with the police to expose the scandal by which arrest warrants were being issued. According to the appellant, the sting operation was carried out at his instance. This matter was splashed across the newspapers and the police started investigating the matter. In fact, the Sessions Court, Nadiad took suo motu notice and quashed the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Dakor and recalled the warrants. The case was transferred from the JMFC, Dakor to JMFC, Nadiad.

3. A public interest litigation was filed in the High Court by Shri Ajit D. Padiwal, an advocate. Shri Padiwal died during the pendency of the petition but keeping in view the serious nature of the issues involved the High Court continued with the appeal and appointed an amicus curiae to assist it. The appellant also intervened in the matter. The criminal proceedings were also initiated against four persons before the Dakor Court. The High Court by an elaborate judgment dated 15th/20th/21st and 22nd September, 2004 disposed of the writ petition giving various directions. None has challenged those directions. The challenge is limited to the directions issued by the High Court that all the courts where the 10 proceedings against the appellant and his family members are pending should disposed of the proceedings at the earliest.

4. The contention of the appellant is that, in fact, during the course of proceedings before the High Court various reports were submitted to the High Court by the police officials which clearly indicate that the cases filed against the appellant were totally false. In many of the cases the complainants was not even in existence and remained absent and in some cases the complainant denied having filed any case. Therefore, the appellant prayed that the proceedings in all the 10 cases be quashed.

5. We may also note that the appellant had also filed Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 150 of 2006 in this Court praying for the similar reliefs in which this Court had passed the following order:

“In view of the fact that in SLP(C) No.10008/2005 leave has been granted, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India by the same party.