Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ASHOK BHUSHAN, R. SUBHASH REDDY, M.R. SHAH, JJ.
SANJAI TIWARI – APPELLANT
VERSUS
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. – RESPONDENTS
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.869 Of 2020(Arising out of SLP(Crl.)No.5299 of 2020)
Decided on : 16-12-2020
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 13(1) C/D read with 13(2) and Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A & 120B IPC – Quashing of complaint – Direction to expedite trial – It is obligation of State and prosecution to ensure that all criminal trials are conducted expeditiously so that justice can be delivered to accused if found guilty – All criminal trials where offences involved under Prevention of Corruption Act have to be concluded at an early date – It is for parties in criminal case to raise all questions and challenge proceedings initiated against them at appropriate time before proper forum and not for third parties under garb of Public Interest Litigants – High Court in appropriate cases can very well under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or in any other proceeding can always direct trial Court to expedite criminal trial and issue such order as may be necessary – Application by a person who is in no way connected with criminal proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot ordinarily be entertained by High Court – In present case proceedings have been initiated by respondent No.2 who was not concerned with proceedings in any manner – Respondent No.2 has no locus to file application which was not clearly maintainable – Impugned judgment of High Court cannot be sustained – Application filed by respondent No. 2 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed. (Paras 11, 14, 15 and 16 )
Facts of the Case:
Instant appeal has been filed questioning the order dated 09.09.2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by respondent No.2 on which application the High Court directed the trial court to expedite the criminal trial and conclude the same at the earliest.
Findings of Court:
Criminal trial of an accused is conducted in accordance with procedure as prescribed by Criminal Procedure Code. It is obligation of State and prosecution to ensure that all criminal trials are conducted expeditiously so that justice can be delivered to accused if found guilty. The present is not a case where prosecution or even the employer of the accused have filed an application either before the trial court or in any other court seeking direction as prayed by respondent No.2 in his application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal has been filed questioning the order dated 09.09.2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by respondent No.2 on which application the High Court directed the trial court to expedite the criminal trial and conclude the same at the earliest.
3. The appellant is an accused in FIR No.02/2006, Vigilance Department, Lucknow under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A & 120B IPC and Section 13(1) C/D read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Vigilance Department of State of Uttar Pradesh commenced an inquiry on a complaint filed by one R.K. Choudhary. Writ Petition No.45047 of 2005 was filed by the appellant in the High Court challenging the Vigilance Inquiry initiated against him. The High Court directed on 22.08.2005 that unless complainant R.K. Choudhary is examined first no inquiry can be proceeded with against the appellant. On 08.12.2005, the Secretary, Vigilance, U.P. directed lodging of an FIR against the appellant and five others. On the basis of which FIR No.02/2006 was registered against the appellant. Writ Petition No.572 of 2006 was filed by the appellant in which the High Court stayed the order dated 08.12.2005 passed by the Secretary, Vigilance Department which order was continued by order dated 31.12.2006. In PIL No.35628/2013 the High Court by an order on 04.07.2013 directed conducting of a preliminary investigation by CBI. Writ Petition No.45047 of 2005 filed by the appellant was dismissed due to non-appearance of counsel on 29.01.2020. After which charge-sheet dated 23.05.2020 was filed by the Vigilance Department against the appellant before the Court of Additional District Judge/Special Judge(A/C), Court No.5, Gorakhpur, U.P. Respondent No.2 filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on 04.08.2020 seeking direction to Special Judge to expedite and conclude Special Trial No.520/2020. Respondent No.2 in his application in paragraph 6 disclosing his locus has made the following averments:
"6. That the applicant is a social activist and an Advocate by profession and a person having an urge to positively contribute to the society in all possible ways. He puts it on oath that he is not filing this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for any personal interest. He or any of his relations are not going to be benefited by filing the application."
4. Respondent No.2 has further stated in his application that although FIR was lodged on 09.01.2006 but it got delayed by tactics opted by the accused persons. The Vigilance Department completed the investigation after about 14 years and still the accused persons are trying to get away from the charges. The aforesaid application filed by respondent No.2 came before the High Court for consideration on 09.09.2020 which application stood disposed of by the following order:
"The instant application has been filed to expedite and conclude Special Trial No.520 of 2020, "State of U.P. vs. Sanjai Tiwari" relating to Case Crime No.02 of 2006, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A & 120B IPC and Section 13(1) C/D read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Kursi, District Barabanki, pending in the court of Additional District Judge/Special Judge, Anti Corruption Act, Court No.5, Gorakhpur.
Learned Senior Counsel submits that the special trial pending before the court below be expedited.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the application stands disposed of directing the Court concerned to expedite the proceedings of the aforesaid case and conclude the same, at the earliest possible, on day to day basis without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, in accordance with law, provided there is no impediment."
5. Learned counsel for the appellant questioning the order of the High Court submits that the High Court committed error in entertaining the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at the
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
