SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(MP) 228

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
A.M. Khanwilkar, C.J. and Rohit Arya, J.
Shri Ram Naresh Yadav v. State of M.P. and others
Writ Petition No.3346 of 2015 (Jabalpur); Decided on 5.5.2015.

Headnote:Ram Jethmalani and Adarsh Muni Rrivedi with Ashok Kumar Singh, Surinder Datt Sharma dna Mahendra Pateriya for petitioner;

       Ravish Chandra Agrawal, Advocate General with R.K. Kaurav, Additional Advocate General and Prakaksh Gupta, Panel Lawyer

       for respondent/State;

       Vikram Singh for Union of India.

       (1) Constitution of India -- Art.361(2) and (3) -- object of -- words “criminal proceedings whatsoever” and “institution, in any Court” used under -- interpretation and construction of -- should be made in keeping its broad and basis purposes and objectives.

       Held : It is well established position that a special approach must be adopted for the interpretation and construction of the provisions in the Constitution to determine the meaning of its parts in keeping with its broad and basic purposes and objectives.[Para18

       Keeping thesecardinal principlesin mind, we may endeavourto give meaning to the words found in Article 361(2) in particular, which are not otherwise, defined either in the Constitution or the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code, namely,“criminal proceedings’’, “whatsoever” and “institution, in any Court”.

       The plain language of clause (3) leaves no manner of doubt that the arrest or imprisonment of the Head of a State during his term of office pursuant to any process, is “completely” prohibited. Some discussion, however, has become necessary in the context of clause (2), which envisages that no “criminal proceedings whatsoever” shall be “instituted” or continued against the Headof a State “in any Court” during his term of office. AIR 1978 SC 68, (1990)1 SCC 109 and AIR 1993 SC 1804 followed. [Paras 21 & 22

       (2) Interpretation of Statutes -- principle of -- provisions in the Constitutional -- interpretation and construction of -- should be made in keeping with its broad and basic purposes and objectives. [Paras 18, 19 & 20

       (3) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- Ss.154, 156, 157(1), 159, 167, 173 and 310 -- Constitution of India -- Art.361(2) and (3) -- in report of Commission of cognizable offences under IPC or other penal laws -- whether regiastration of FIR under section 154 against Governor is prohibited -- FIR -- means of -- it also includes “criminal proceedings” and “institution, in any Court” -- thus the police is prohibited from registration of FIR against Head of State/Governor -- as envisaged in Article 361(2) of Constitution.

       Held : The registration of FIR would certainly not qualify the definition of “judicial proceedings”.But,as aforesaid, the expression “criminal proceedings”,being wider than the expression “judicial proceedings”, musten compass the act of institution or registration of First Information Report by the Police Officer which is to set in motion criminal action. [Para 27

       The word ‘proceeding’ simplicitor is alsoused in section 310 of the Code with reference to action to be taken by the police. These provisions leave no manner of doubtthat proceeding can be other than enquiry or a trial and including acts and duties of police or Magistrate to be discharged as per the provisions in the Code being statutory action. This lends support to the view that we are taking and which is in consonance with the settled legal position that the act of registration of FIR by the police officer is no less a “criminal proceedings”, which ignites the criminal process in respectof any cognizable offence. [Para 29

       A priori, mere registration of FIR under section 154 must bedeemed to be criminal proceedings institutedbefore the Court (Magistrate). Itmust, therefore, attract clause (2) of Article 361 of the Constitution, being “criminal proceedings whatsoever” instituted in the Court. Inasmuch as, consequent to forwarding of FIR to the Court it is effectively laid before the Magistrate and resultantly deemed to be instituted in the Court. Viewed thus, in law, the police is prohibited even from registration of FIR in respect of cognizable offence against the Head of a State as envisaged in Article 361(2) of our Constitution. [Para 33

       sIn the context of the intent behind extending such immunity to the Head of a State it is imperative to hold that the police is prohibited from even registering FIR against the Head of a State during his term of office because of the bar contained in Article 361(2).

        [Para 34

       (4) Constitution of India -- Arts.226, 361(2) and (3) -- Criminal P.C., 1973 -- Ss.154 and 482 -- in respect of commission of cognizable offence under IPC or other criminal laws -- FIR registered against Governor or basis of information given by co-accused -- it would deemed to be criminal proceeding instituted before the Court -- material fact constituting commission of cognizable offence by petitioner -- not disclosed in FIR -- such FIR is inadmissible in law -- absolute protection from criminal proceeding and from arrest granted under Article 361(2) and (3) -- FIR can be quashed in exercise of extraordinary powers under Article 226 or inherent powers under section 481 CrPC -- same quashed -- petition allowed.

       Held : Thus, it is essential to hold that with the registration of FIR under section 154 of the Code, it is deemed to be a criminal proceeding instituted before the Court. [Para 48

       Therefore, applying the principle underlying the dictum of the Supreme Court, when information disclosing involvement of any Head of a State is given or received, it would be the bounden duty of the police to ensure that no FIR is registered against the Head of a State during his term of office. [Para 50

       Having held that even registration of FIR against the Head of a State during his term of office is prohibited, the petition should succeed on that count alone. [Para 55

       We would now revert to the other argument advanced for quashing of the impugned FIR qua the petitioner being infirm on different counts and also because of non-disclosure of any material fact constituting commission of cognizable offence by the petitioner and having been recorded on the basis of information given by co-accused which is inadmissible in law. For that, we may usefully refer to the broad contours to be borne in mind for quashing the FIR in exercise of extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution or theinherent power under section 482 of the Code.

        [Para 56

       The FIR has been registered onthe information given by D.S. Baghel, Deputy Superintendent of Police,the informant. Further,the impugned FIR contains facts which have been gathered during the investigation of other crimes of similar type, by the informant. The specific role played by the petitioner (named as accused No.10) has not been stated, except the general information received from co-accused that the petitioner had recommended names of five candidates. [Para 59

       Inasmuch as, for the view we have taken, while dealing with the primary question of extent of immunity and privilege extended to the Head of a State, during his term of office, which answers the jurisdictional fact, we proceed to quash the impugned FIR qua the petitioner on that count alone, with liberty to the police to proceed in accordance with law, after the petitioner ceases to be the Governor. (2014)2 SCC 1 followed. AIR 1955 Hyd. 241, (2010)12 SCC 254, (1991)4 SCC 584, (2003)6 SCC 175, (2009)10 SCC 773, AIR 1966 Ker. 11, AIR 1931 All. 269 and 1992 Suppl.(1) SCC 335 discussed. (1998)2 SCC 602, (2002)4 SCC 388 and (1976)2 SCC 521 referred to. AIR 1955 SC 196, AIR 1964 SC 1541, (1914)1 KB 122 and AIR 1966 All. 305 distinguished. [Para 60, 61 & 62

        ¼1½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 361¼2½ rFkk ¼3½ dk mn~ns’; & mica/k ds v/khu iz;qDr ‘kCn nkafMd dk;Zokgh] fdlh izdkj dh rFkk fdlh U;k;ky; esa lafLFkr & fuoZpu rFkk vFkkZUo;u & budk O;kid vkSj ewy iz;kstuksa rFkk mn~ns’;ksa dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, fd;k tkuk pkfg,A

       vfHkfu/kkZfjr % ;g lqLFkkfir fLFkfr gS fd lafo/kku ds mica/kksa esa blds fdlh Hkkx dk vFkkZUo;u vo/kkj.k ds fy, fuoZpu vkSj vFkkZUo;u djus ds fy, blds O;kid vkSj ewy iz;kstuksa rFkk mn~ns’;ksa dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, fof’k”V igq¡p viukbZ tkuk pkfg,A

       ¼iSjk 18½

       bu eq[; fl}karksa dks /;ku esa j[krs gq,] ge vuqPNsn 361¼2½ esa ik, x, fof’k”V ‘kCnksa dk vFkkZUo;u djus dk iz;kl dj ldrs gS] tks ;k rks lafo/kku ;k naM izfdz;k lafgrk ds mica/kksa esa ls vU;Fkk ifjHkkf”kr ugha gS] uker% nkafMd dk;Zokgh] fdlh Hkh izdkj dh vkSj U;k;ky; esa lafLFkrA

       [kaM ¼3½ dh lknk Hkk”kk fdlh izdkj ds lansg dh vuqefr ugha nsrh fd jkT; ds izeq[k dh mldh inkof/k ds nkSjku fdlh izfdz;k ds vuqlj.k esa fxjrkjh ;k dkjkokl iw.kZr;k izfrfl} gSA [kaM ¼2½ ds lanHkZ esa dqN foospu djuk fQj Hkh vko’;d gks x;k gS] tks ifjdYiuk djrk gS fd jkT; ds izeq[k ds fo:} mldh inkokf/k ds nkSjku fdlh U;k;ky; esa] fdlh Hkh izdkj dh nkafMd dk;Zokgh lafLFkr ;k pkyw ugha j[kh tk,xhA , vkb vkj 1978 ,l lh 68] ¼1990½ 1 ,l lh lh 109 rFkk , vkb vkj 1993 ,l lh lh 1804 vuqlfjrA

       ¼iSjk 21 ,oa 22½

       ¼2½ fof/k dk fuoZpu & dk fl}kar & lafo/kku ds mica/k & dk fuoZpu ,oa vFkkZUo;u & blds O;kid ,oa ewy iz;kstuksa rFkk mn~ns’;ksa dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, fd;k tkuk pkfg,A

       ¼iSjk 18] 19 ,oa 20½

       ¼3½ naM izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 154] 156] 157¼1½] 159] 167] 173 rFkk 310 & Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 361¼2½ rFkk ¼3½ Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk ;k vU; naM fof/k;ksa ds v/khu laKs; vijk/k fd, tkus ds fo”k; esa & D;k jkT;iky ds fo:} /kkjk 154 ds v/khu izFke bfryk fjiksVZ dk jftLVªhdj.k izfrf”k} gS & izFke bfryk fjiksVZ & ls vfHkizsr & blesa nkafMd dk;Zokgh ,oa fdlh U;k;ky; esa lafLFkr Hkh lfEefyr gS & bl izdkj iqfyl jkT; ds izeq[k@jkT;iky ds fo:} izFke bfryk fjiksVZ dk jftLVªhdj.k djus ls izfrf”k} gS & tSlk fd lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 361¼2½ esa ifjdfYir gSA

       vfHkfu/kkZfjr % izFke bfryk fjiksVZ dk jftLVªhdj.k fuf’pr :i ls U;kf;d dk;Zokgh dh ifjHkk”kk dks lhfer ugha djsxhA fdarq] tSlk fd mi;qZDr] vfHkO;fDr nkafMd dk;Zokgh] U;kf;d dk;Zokgh ls O;kid gksus ls] iqfyl vf/kdkjh }kjk laLFkkiu dk dk;Z ;k izFke bfryk fjiksVZ dk jftLVªhdj.k djuk lfEefyr gksuk pkfg, & tks fu;fer izkjafHkd nkafMd dk;Zokgh gSA

       ¼iSjk 27½

       ‘kCn dk;Zokgh lafgrk dh /kkjk 310 esa Hkh iqfyl }kjk dh tkus dh dk;Zokgh ds lanHkZ esa vizfrca/k iz;qDr gqvk gSA bu mica/kksa dk lansg ugh jgrk gS fd dk;Zokgh tk¡p ;k fopkj.k dh vis{kk vU; gks ldrh gS vkSj dkuwuh dkjokbZ gksus ls lafglrk ds mica/kksa ds vuqlkj iqfyl ;k eftLVªsV dk dk;Z ,oa drZO;ksa dk fuoZgu djuk gksrk gSA ;g gekjs }kjk yh tk jgh jk; dk leFkZu djrk gS tks lqLFkkfir fof/kd fLFkfr ds lkeatL; esa gS fd iqfyl vf/kdkjh }kjk izFke bfryk fjiksVZ dk jftLVªhdj.k djuk ,d nkafMd dk;Zokgh ls de ugha gS] tks fdlh laKs; vijk/k ds fo”k; esa nkafMd vknsf’kdk mrsftr djrh gSA

       ¼iSjk 29½

       dkj.k&dkZ rdZ] /kkjk 154 ds v/khu ek= izFke bfryk fjiksVZ ds jftLVªhdj.k dks U;k;ky; eftLVªsV ds le{k nkafMd dk;Zokgh lafLFkr gksuk le>uk pkfg,A blfy,] fdlh Hkh izdkj dh nkafMd dk;Zokgh U;k;ky; esa lafLFkr gksus ls lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 361 dk [kaM ¼2½ vkdf”kZr gksuk pkfg,A blds vfrfjDr] vuqorhZ izFke bfryk fjiksVZ dks U;k;ky; dks vxsz”k.k dj dk;Zlk/kd eftLVªsV ds le{k j[kh tkrh gS vkSj ifj.kker% U;k;ky; esa lafLFkr gksuk le>h tk,xhA bl izdkj fof/k dk n`f”Vdks.k gS fd iqfyl jkT; ds izeq[k ds fo:} laKs; vijk/k ds fo”k; esa Hkh izFke bfryk fjiksVZ dk jftLVªhdj.k djus ls izfrf”k} gS & tSlk fd gekjs lafo/kkfud vuqPNsn 361¼2½ esa ifjdfYir gSA

       ¼iSjk 33½

       jkT; ds izeq[k dks ,slh mUeqfDr iznku djus ds mn~ns’; ds lanHkZ esa ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr djuk vfuok;Z gS fd iqfyl jkT; ds izeq[k ds fo:} mldh inkof/k ds nkSjku vuqPNsn 361¼2½ esa varfoZ”V otZu ds dkj.k izFke bfryk fjiksVZ jftLVj djus ls Hkh izfrf”kf} gSA

       ¼iSjk 34½

       ¼4½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 226] 361¼2½ rFkk ¼3½ & naM izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 154 rFkk 482 Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk ;k vU; naM fof/k;ksa ds v/khu laKs; vijk/k fd, tkus ds fo”k; esa & lg&vfHkqDr }kjk nh xbZ lwpuk ds vk/kkj ij jkT;iky ds fo:} izFke bfryk fjiksVZ jftLVj dh xbZ & ;g U;k;ky; ds le{k nkafMd dk;Zokgh lafLFkr fd;k tkuk le>k tk,xk & ;kph }kjk laKs; vijk/k fd;k tkuk xfBr djus ds lkjoku~ rF; & izFke bfryk fjiksVZ esa izdV ugha fd, & ,slh izFke bfryk fjiksVZ fof/k esa vxzkg~; gS & vuqPNsn 361¼2½ rFkk ¼3½ ds v/khu nkafMd dk;Zokgh ,oa fxjrkjh ls iw.kZ laj{k.k iznku fd;k x;k gS & vuqPNsn 226 ds v/khu vlk/kkj.k ‘kfDr;ksa ;k na-iz-la- dh /kkjk 482 ds v/khu varfufgZr ‘kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx dj izFke bfryk fjiksVZ vikLr dh tk ldrh gS & mls vikLr fd;k x;k & ;kfpdk eatwj dh xbZA

       vfHkfu/kkZfjr % bl izdkj] ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr djuk vko’;d gS fd lafgrk dh /kkjk 154 ds v/khu izFke bfryk fjiksVZ dk jftLVªhdj.k djus ds lkFk ;g U;k;ky; ds le{k nkafMd dk;Zokgh lafLFkr fd;k tkuk le>k tk,xkA

       ¼iSjk 48½

       blfy,] mPpre U;k;ky; dh vH;qfDr ds ewyk/kkj fl}kar dks ykxw dj] tc jkT; ds izeq[k dk varxzZLr gksus dh lwpuk nh tkrh gS ;k izkIr dh tkrh gS] iqfyl dk ;g lqfuf’pr djuk vkc} dj drZO; gksxk fd jkT; ds izeq[k ds fo:} mldh inkof/k ds nkSjku izFke bfryk fjiksVZ jftLVMZ u dh tk,A

       ¼iSjk 50½

       ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr djrs gq, fd jkT; ds izeq[k ds fo:} mldh inkof/k ds nkSjku izFke bfryk fjiksVZ dk jftLVªhdj.k Hkh izfrf”kf} gS] ;kfpdk dsoy ek= blh vk/kkj ij lQy gksuk pkfg,A

       ¼iSjk 55½

       vc ge ;kph ds laca/k esa vk{ksfir izFke bfryk fjiksVZ dks vikLr djus ds fy, fd, x, rdZ ij okil vkrs gS & fHkUu dkj.kksa ls v’kDr vkSj ;kph laKs; vijk/k fd;k tkuk xfBr djus ds lkjoku~ rF; Hkh izdV ugha fd, x, vkSj lg&vfHkqDr }kjk nh xbZ lwpuk ds vk/kkj ij vfHkfyf[kr dh xbZ tks fof/k esa vxzkg~; gSA bl dkj.k] ge O;kid :ijs[kk dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, izFke bfryk fjiksVZ vikLr djus ds fy, lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 226 ds v/khu vlk/kkj.k ‘kfDr;ksa ;k /kkjk 482 ds v/khu varfuZfgr ‘kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx dj ldrs gSA

       izFke bfryk fjiksVZ Mh-,l- c?ksy] mi&iqfyl v/kh{kd }kjk nh xbZ lwpuk ij jftLVMZ dh xbZ gSA blds vfrfjDr] izFke bfryk fjiksVZ esa varfoZ”V rF; tks lwpuk nsus okus us leku izdkj ds vijk/kksa ds vUos”k.k ds nkSjku izkIr fd, gSA ;kph ¼uker% vfHk;qDr dz-10½ }kjk fd;k x;k fofufnZ”V dk;Z dk dFku ugha fd;k x;k gS] lg&vfHkqDr ls lkekU; lwpuk izkIr ds flok;] fd ;kph us ik¡p vH;fFkZ;ksa dh vuqla’kk dh FkhA

       ¼iSjk 59½

       p¡wfd] ge jk; O;Dr dj pqds gS] jkT; ds izeq[k dh inkof/k ds nkSjku iznku dh xbZ mUeqfDr ,oa fo’ks”kkf/kdkj ds izkjafHkd iz’u dh lhek rd fopkj djrs le;] tks vf/kdkfjrk fo”k;d rF; dk mrj gS] ge dsoy blh dkj.k ;kph ds :i esa vk{ksfir izFke bfryk fjiksVZ vikLr djus dh dk;Zokgh djrs gS] iqfyl dks fof/k d vuqlkj dk;Zokgh djus dh Lora=rk ds lkFk] ;kph dk jkT;iky u jgus ds i’pkr~A ¼2014½ 2 ,l lh lh 1 vuqlfjrA , vkb vkj 1955 gSnjkckn 241] ¼2010½ 12 ,l lh lh 254] ¼1991½ 4 ,l lh lh 584] ¼2003½ 6 ,l lh lh 175] ¼2009½ 10 ,l lh lh 773] , vkb vkj 1966 dsjy 11] , vkb vkj 1931 byk- 269 rFkk 1992 lIyh- ¼1½ ,l lh lh 335 foosfprA ¼1998½ 2 ,l lh lh 602] ¼2002½ 4 ,l lh lh 388 rFkk ¼1976½ 2 ,l lh lh 521 fufnZ”VA , vkb vkj 1951 ,l lh 196] , vkb vkj 1964 ,l lh 1541] ¼1914½ 1 ds ch 122 rFkk , vkb vkj 1966 byk- 305 izHksfnrA

       ¼iSjk 60] 61 ,oa 62½

       

JUDGMENT :

Khanwilkar, C.J. -- 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is, essentially, for quashing of FIR No.4/2015 qua the petitioner lodged at Police Station, STF, Bhopal on 24.2.2015 for offences punishable under sections 417, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A and 120B of Indian Penal Code read with sections 65 and 66 of Information Technology Act, sections 7, 13(1D), 13(2) and 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and section 3(d), 1, 2/4 of M.P. Manyata Prapt Pariksha Adhiniyam, 1937.

2. The petitioner has been named as accused No.10 in the said FIR. The FIR reads thus:

First Infomation Report (under section 154 Cr PC)

3. The prosecution case against the petitioner is founded on the information divulged, inter alia, by Nitin Mohindra and Pankaj Trivedi that the petitioner had recommended names of five candidates to facilitate their selection on the post of Forest Guards by resorting to unfair means in the examination conducted by M.P. Professional Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘VYAPAM examination’) and thus the petitioner committed alleged offence being party to the conspiracy along with other co-accused. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of FIR qua him. The grounds stated in the writ petition, inter alia, are that if a person bonafide believing that the candidate who has applied for the job has adequate fitness for that job and there is nothing in his character and antecedent to disqualify him recommends his name for consideration, that by itself will not constitute commission of any offence much less a cognizable offence. Further, no FIR could have been registered against the petitioner without a preliminary enquiry for ascertaining the genuineness of the information and whether it amounts to commission of cognizable offence. That was mandatory as has been held by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P. and others [(2014)2 SCC 1]. The second ground urged in the writ petition, is that, the Special Investigation Team (SIT) appointed by the High Court for monitoring the investigation of VYAPAM examination scam crimes was aware of the material submitted by a responsible leader of a long standing and Member of Rajya Sabha Shri Digvijay Singh along with his signed affidavit -mentioning that the excel sheet to which reference has been made in the FIR has been forged by alteration and the name of Governor has been substituted in place of the Chief Minister. That information ought to have been verified before registration of FIR. At the same time, however, it is conceded by the petitioner that the said material pertained to selection of Teachers and not Forest Guards,which is the subject matter of the impugned FIR. The third ground urged in the writ petition, is that, the FIR does not disclose that the informant had personal knowledge of the factum of Governor having made any recommendation nor the informant has mentioned that the Governor had communicated with him in that behalf. On the other hand, the allegations in the FIR refer to some intermediary and the statement made by unknown and undisclosed intermediary. That cannot be used to implicate the Governor of the State. The next ground urged is that the Governor is a highly respected statesman who is now more than 87 years old having unblemished record in various capacities including being Member of Parliament and Chief Minister of State of Uttar Pradesh. It is then contended that the petitioner has been suffering from serious health problems and was admitted to Intensive Care Unit (ICU) for sometime before being discharged and is under constant supervision of Doctors and medication. It is also contended that the order passed by this Court in suo moto proceedings being Writ Petition No.6385/2014 (in which investigation by STF of VYAPAM Scam Crimes is being monitored by the High Court), on 20.2.2015, was being misinterpreted to mean that sanction is accorded to STF to proce











































































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top