Back
2011(72) ACC 731
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Hon'ble Raj Mani Chauhan,J.
Surendra Bahadur Singh
Versus
State of U.P. and 2 others ......Opposite Parties.
Criminal Misc.Case No. 1781 of 2007
Decided On: January 13, 2011
The court analyzed Section 156 (3) and Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court also referred to Section 196 (1-A) of the Code. The court found that the complainant filed a complaint under Section 156 (3) of the Code, which was rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The complainant then filed the present complaint before the Special Judge (Anti-Corruption), concealing the rejection of the earlier complaint. The court held that the present complaint was an abuse of process and quashed the proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The accused-petitioners filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings of a complaint case filed against them. The complainant alleged that the accused-petitioners demanded illegal payments for additional work done by the complainant. The learned Special Judge took cognizance of the offences and ordered a preliminary inquiry by the Vigilance Department. The accused-petitioners argued that the complaint was an abuse of process and that the matter was a civil dispute. The complainant denied the allegations and argued that the accused-petitioners filed false affidavits and forged documents. The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings of the complaint case.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court considered the allegations made by the complainant in the present complaint and in the earlier complaint filed under Section 156 (3) of the Code. The court found that the allegations were almost the same and that the complainant did not disclose the rejection of the earlier complaint. The court held that the present complaint was an abuse of process and allowed the petition to quash the proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a second complaint on the same facts, concealing the rejection of an earlier complaint, is not maintainable. The court also held that a prospective accused cannot participate in an inquiry under Section 202 of the Code. The court further held that the bar under Section 196 (1-A) of the Code does not apply to registration of a criminal case or investigation without prior sanction. The court dismissed the application to initiate criminal proceedings against the accused-petitioners.
Result: The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings of the complaint case. The application to initiate criminal proceedings against the accused-petitioners was dismissed.
1. This petition has been filed by the accused-petitioners for invoking its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Code) for quashing the proceeding of complaint Case No. 10 of 2007 filed by the opposite party No.3-complainant against them in the court of learned Special Judge (Anti Corruption), Gorakhpur as well as for quashing the orders dated 10.5.2007 and 16.5.2007, passed by learned Special Judge (Anti-Corruption), Gorakhpur whereby he has taken cognizance of the offences on the complaint of the complainant and directed the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Lucknow to conduct inquiry in the matter.
2. From a perusal of the record, it appears that the learned Special Judge (Anti-Corruption), Gorakhpur, vide order dated 10.5.2007, had entertained the impugned complaint filed by the opposite party no.3. He took cognizance of the offences and recorded the statement of the complainant under Section 200 of the Code and thereafter fixed 16.5.2007 for recording the statement of witnesses under Section 202 of the Code. The learned Special Judge, vide order dated 16.5.2007, instead of making inquiry himself under Section 202 of the Code keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case as well as nature of the offences alleged to have been committed by the accused petitioners thought it proper to get the matter preliminary inquired by the Vigilance Department, Lucknow. Consequently, he by the impugned order dated 16.5.2007 directed the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Lucknow to get the matter inquired in to from his own level and submit report before the court within two months from the date of the order.
3. The relevant facts giving rise to the present petition may be summarized as under:
4. The opposite party no. 3-Yogesh Talan, S/o Sri C.P. Singh, Managing Director, Startech Enggcon (P) Ltd., 505 DDA Building-5, District Center Janakpuri, New Delhi - 110058 filed a complaint against the accused petitioners in the Court of learned Special Judge (Anti Corruption), Gorakhpur with the allegation that he was Managing Director of Startech Enggcon (P) Ltd. which was involved in construction of building works. The petitioner no. 1-Surendra Bahadur Singh was Vice Chancellor of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya Avadh University and the petitioner no. 2-Babu Ram Kannaujia was Registrar of the said University during the relevant period. The petitioner no. 1 in the year 2003-04 invited tenders for construction of Engineering workshop, Students Amenity Center and Campus Development in the University Campus. So many persons including him had filled their tender forms after depositing the requisite security amount to execute the works detailed in the tender notice. On opening of the tender, the rate quoted by him for execution of the work under the tender was found to be lowest, consequently the petitioner no.1 accepted his tender and after observing other formalities both of them executed the agreement deed i.e. contract to execute the work as detailed in the tender notice within the stipulated time mentioned therein. The complainant has further alleged that as per terms and conditions of the tender, he completed the work within the stipulated period as per satisfaction of the accused-petitioners. The quality of the work executed by him was found to be up to the mark as per specification in the tender notice. He in a grand programme organized by the petitioner no. 1 handed over the complete project of 'campus development work' to him. The 'students amenity center' too was inaugurated by His Excellency the Governor of Uttar Pradesh. The students amenity center was too handed over by him to the petitioners in the said programme. The complainant has further alleged that while he was constructing the student amenity center he had to execute additional work beyond the work mentioned in tender notice on the request of the petitioners as well as on the demand of t
AI
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
