Back
1985 Supreme(Ker) 72
Judges : RADHAKRISHNA MENON
K.KARUNAKARAN - Appellant
Versus
RAJENDRAN - Respondent
Case No : Crl.M.C. No. 137 of 1985
Decided On : 03/29/1985
Advocates Appeared :
P.V. Ayyappan; For Petitioner Party in person; For Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of issue estoppel to preclude the re-agitation of the same issue based on the same facts in any subsequent litigation, and the finding that the second complaint was an abuse of the process of the court.
Headnote:
S.420 - Abuse of Process of Court - S.197(1) Crl. P. C. - S.203 Crl. P. C. - S.415 I.P.C. - S.482 and 397(1) Crl. Procedure Code - The court discussed the application of S.197(1) Crl. P. C. which requires sanction from the government to prosecute a public servant, the elements of cheating under S.415 I.P.C., and the principle of issue estoppel. The court found that the second complaint was an abuse of the process of the court and quashed the proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Chief Minister of Kerala, was accused of using 'Government Exchange Orders' to purchase plane tickets for personal visits to Bombay, allegedly drawing charges from the public exchequer. The Chief Judicial Magistrate initially dismissed the complaint for want of sanction under S.197(1) Crl. P. C. and later entertained the same complaint, leading to the petitioner's petition to quash the complaint as an abuse of the process of the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the second complaint was a repetition of the first complaint and did not disclose exceptional circumstances justifying its consideration. The court also held that the dismissal of the first complaint precluded the re-agitation of the same issue based on the same facts in any subsequent litigation, and thus, the second complaint was an abuse of the process of the court.
Issues: The issues involved the application of S.197(1) Crl. P. C., the elements of cheating under S.415 I.P.C., and the principle of issue estoppel in the context of a repeated complaint against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principle of issue estoppel to preclude the re-agitation of the same issue based on the same facts in any subsequent litigation. It also emphasized that the second complaint did not disclose exceptional circumstances justifying its consideration, and thus, was an abuse of the process of the court.
Final Decision: The court quashed the proceedings, C. C.18 of 1985, as it found the second complaint to be a gross abuse of the process of the court and not filed with the object of furthering the interests of justice.
1. A petition under S.482 and 397(1), Crl. Procedure Code. The petitioner seeks to quash C. C.18 of 1985, on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trivandrum as being an abuse of the process of court.
2. The facts lie in a narrow compass:
3. The petitioner is the Chief Minister of Kerala. C, C.18 of 1985 is the complaint filed by the respondent against the petitioner. The sum and substance of the complaint is this. For his private and personal visits to Bombay on the 30th November 1983 and 2nd December 1983 (and also for his return trips), the petitioner utilised the "Government Exchange Orders" to purchase the plane tickets. The plane ticket charges were drawn from the public exchequer, it is alleged, on the fraudulent and dishonest misrepresentation that he went to Bombay on official business. The petitioner has thus committed the offence of cheating, punishable under S.420 I. P. C. This complaint, filed on 12th May, 1984 was numbered as Crl. M.P.180 of 1984.
4. The Chief Judicial Magistrate forwarded this complaint to the Additional Judicial Magistrate of the 1st Class, Trivandrum-1, for conducting an enquiry under S.202, Crl. P. C. The 1 st Class Magistrate examined three witnesses. Taking into account the said evidence as also the other circumstances, the 1st Class Magistrate submitted a report to the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 14-5-1984. The Chief Judicial Magistrate considered the evidence and the report of the Judicial Magistrate of the 1st Class and passed an order dismissing the complaint, Crl. M. P.180 of 1984, under S.203, Crl.P.C. The Chief Judicial Magistrate in the said order has categorically and positively found that the complaint is not maintainable in law for want of sanction under S.197 (1), Crl. P. C. This is what the Magistrate has stated in the order in regard to this aspect of the case:
"Ministers of Central and State are public servants.It is settled that a minister is a public servant. The accused being the Chief Minister of Kerala State, he is thus a public servant who is removable by the State Government. Hence S.197, Crl. P. C. is applicable to the present accused also.
It is the case of the complainant that the accused 'misused his official capacity as Chief Minister of Kerala to get the tickets from the Indian Airlines for his journey from Trivandrum to Bombay and back to Cochin. The object of this section is primarily to guard against vexatious proceedings against public servants. Before such criminal proceedings are launched against public servants, it has been considered proper that the well considered opinion of a superior authority to be obtained. The bar imposed by the section is absolute. The bar will be removed when sanction is given by the Government. The protection given to public servant is thus limited by making the sanction of the Government a condition precedent to the launching of a prosecution. The section regulates the competence of the court and bars its jurisdiction in certain cases except in compliance therewith. Sanction is necessary only when a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. It is argued by the complainant that the present accused committed the offence not by his acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official [duty and hence no sanction is necessary. From the evidence it is seen that the ticket for the journeys were purchased by the special secretary to the Chief Minister. The act of the Chief Minister cannot be distinguished as official act or personal act. Anyhow it is the case of the complainant that he has misused his office for the purchase of tickets and hence it is to be held that he purchased the ticket while acting or purporting to have acting his official duty as Chief Minister of Kerala. The official duty and personal duty of the Chief Minist
