State of M. P. vs Shivendra Singh - 2021 Supreme(MP) 362

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(MP) 362

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Atul Sreedharan and J.P. Gupta,JJ.
State of M. P. v. Shivendra Singh & Others
Criminal Revision No.2049 of 2018 and Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.5948 of 2020 (Jabalpur): against the judgment dated.19.1.2018 passed by the Special Judge,
Lokayukt, Jabalpur ; Decided on17.3.2021

Advocates:
Satyam Agrawal for applicant /Lokayukta; Manoj Sharma for petitioner; Anil Khare with Priyank Agrawal for respondents
in M. P. No. 5948/2020.

Headnote:
(1) Criminal P.C. 1973 -- Ss. 173, 190 and 197 -- closure report -- not accepted -- Magistrate or Special Judge has power to direct further investigation or to take cognizance on material produced before him if he is of opinion that same is sufficient to prosecute accused -- if any sanction for prosecution is required in law, cognizance cannot be taken unless and until sanction is granted -- in other cases, Magistrate or Judge may also direct complainant to file protest petition and all material to support allegations if he desires so -- thereafter, may take cognizance if sanction is not required -- if sanction is needed, cognizance will be taken after sanction -- in absence of sanction, Magistrate or Special Judge cannot proceed further. [Paras 7 & 8]
(2) Criminal P.C. 1973 -- Ss. 173, 190 and 197 -- closure report -- rejected -- Special Judge observed that sanction for prosecution will be required therefore material be placed before sanctioning authority for consideration -- there is no mandate or command to sanctioning authority to grant sanction for prosecution -- it is only obiter dicta -- does not amount to direction to sanction authority or to file charge sheet. (2014) 13 SCC 707 followed. [Para 9]
(3) Criminal P.C. 1973 -- Ss. 173, 190 and 197 -- closure report -- rejection -- cognizance -- directed for guidance of Magistrate/Special Judge that if they find material is sufficient to take cognizance, they reject closure report without observing that matter be placed before sanctioning authority for granting sanction to prosecute -- may observe that investigating agency shall proceed further in accordance with law -- such order does not curtail power of investigating agency and sanctioning authority. [Para 11]
(4) Criminal P.C. 1973 -- S. 190 -- cognizance -- trial Court did not consider facts and material of present case -- order passed considering facts of another case which was also before it for consideration on same day -- impugned order apparently erroneous, without application of mind and passed mechanically -- not sustainable. [Paras 12 & 13]
(5) Criminal P.C. 1973 -- Ss. 173 and 190 -- closure report -- acceptance -- contention that no offence is made out against one accused, therefore closure report ought to have been accepted -- held -- at stage of consideration of closure report, matter cannot be considered separately for petitioner as cognizance is taken against offence, not against accused -- after cognizance, if accused is summoned then he has right to challenge order on ground that there is no material on basis of which he is summoned. [Para 14]
(6) Criminal P.C. 1973 -- Ss. 173 and 190 -- cognizance -- order suffers from error of non-application of mind -- does not disclose consideration of relevant facts and materials of case -- lack of reasoning for framing opinion contrary to investigating officer -- deserves to be set aside. [Para 15]
(7) Criminal P.C. 1973 -- Ss. 173, 190 and 197 -- closure report -- at stage of consideration, very lengthy and analytical order not required -- if matter is sent back with direction for further investigation, order must indicate shortcoming of investigation, including suggestions and guidelines with regard to further investigation -- when further investigation not required and closure report not accepted, order must indicate in brief the material, available with report, supporting allegations and reasons with regard to opinion contrary to investigating officer -- merely saying that prima facie there is suspicion of commission of crime, not sufficient to reject prayer for closure -- brief, indicative and speaking order required to strike balance and to ensure justice with investigating agency and accused persons. [Para 16]
(8) Criminal P.C. 1973 -- Ss. 173 and 190 -- closure report -- cognizance -- Magistrate and Special Judge have right to differ from opinion of investigating agency -- judicial propriety requires indicating facts, material and reasons compelling Magistrate or Judge to arrive at different conclusion. (2010) 4 SCC 785 and (2009) 9 SCC 219 followed. [Para 19]
¼1½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & èkkjk 173] 190 rFkk 197 & vUos"k.k can djus dk çfrosnu & Lohdkj ugha fd;k x;k & eftLVªsV ;k fo'ks"k U;k;kèkh'k d¨ vfrfjDr vUos"k.k funsf'kr djus vFkkZr] ;fn mldh jk; gS fd mld¢ le{k is'k dh xÃ lkexzh vfÒ;qDr d¨ vfÒ;¨ftr djus d¢ fy, i;kZIr gS r¨] mld¢ vkèkkj ij laKku djus dh 'kfDr gS & ;fn vfÒ;¨tu d¢ fy, eatwjh fofèk esa visf{kr gS r¨ tc rd eatwjh çnku ugha dh tkrh rc rd laKku ugha fd;k tk ldrk & vU; ekey¨a esa] eftLVªsV ;k U;k;kèkh'k ifjoknh d¨] ;fn og pkgs r¨] vH;kifÙk ;kfpdk v©j vius vfÒdFku¨a d¨ lefFkZr djus d¢ fy, leLr lkexzh Qkby djus d¢ fy, funsf'kr Òh dj ldrk gS & rRi'pkr~] eatwjh visf{kr ugha g¨ r¨ laKku dj ldrk gS & eatwjh vko';d g¨ r¨ laKku eatwjh d¢ i'pkr~ fd;k tk,xk & eatwjh d¢ vÒko esa eftLVªsV ;k fo'ks"k U;k;kèkh'k vkxs dk;Zokgh ugha dj ldrkA ¼iSjk 7 ,oa 8½
¼2½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & èkkjk 173] 190 rFkk 197 & vUos"k.k can djus dk çfrosnu & ukeatwj & fo'ks"k U;k;kèkh'k dh leqfDr fd vfÒ;¨tu d¢ fy, eatwjh vko';d g¨xh blfy, eatwjh çkfèkdkjh d¢ le{k lkexzh fopkjkFkZ j[kh tk, & eatwjh çkfèkdkjh d¨ vfÒ;¨tu d¢ fy, eatwjh çnku djus dh vkKk ;k lekns'k ugha & brj¨fDr ek= gS & eatwjh çkfèkdkjh d¢ fy, ;k vkj¨ii= Qkby djus d¢ fy, funs'k dh d¨fV esa ugha vkrkA ¼2014½ 3 ,l lh lh 707 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 9½
¼3½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & èkkjk 173] 190 rFkk 197 & vUos"k.k can djus dk çfrosnu & ukeatwjh & laKku & eftLVªsV@fo'ks"k U;k;kèkh'k d¢ ekxZn'kZu d¢ fy, funsf'kr fd ;fn mudk fu"d"kZ gS fd lkexzh laKku djus d¢ fy, i;kZIr gS] r¨ og vUos"k.k can djus dk çfrosnu ;g leqfDr fd, fcuk ukeatwj djsa fd vfÒ;¨ftr djus dh eatwjh çnku fd, tkus d¢ fy, ekeyk eatwjh çkfèkdkjh d¢ le{k j[kk tk, & ;g leqfDr dj ldrs gSa fd vUos"k.k vfÒdj.k fofèk d¢ vuqlkj vkxs dk;Zokgh djs & ,slk vkns'k vUos"k.k vfÒdj.k v©j eatwjh çkfèkdkjh dh 'kfDr de ugha djrkA ¼iSjk 11½
¼4½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & èkkjk 190 & laKku & fopkj.k U;k;ky; us orZeku ekeys d¢ rF;¨a v©j lkexzh ij fopkj ugha fd;k & vius le{k mlh fnu fopkjkFkZ j[ks ,d vU; ekeys d¢ rF;¨a ij fopkj djrs gq, vkns'k ikfjr & vkf{kIr vkns'k çdVr% xyr] eu¨fu;¨xjfgr rFkk ;a=or~ ikfjr & fLFkj j[ks tkus ;¨X; ughaA ¼iSjk 12 ,oa 13½
¼5½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & èkkjk 173 rFkk 190 & vUos"k.k can djus dk çfrosnu & Lohdkj fd;k tkuk & ladFku fd ,d vfÒ;qDr d¢ fo#) d¨Ã vijkèk fl) ugha g¨rk blfy, vUos"k.k can djus dk çfrosnu Lohdkj fd;k tkuk pkfg, Fkk & vfÒfuèkkZfjr & vUos"k.k can djus d¢ çfrosnu ij fopkj d¢ çØe ij ;kph d¢ fy, ekeys esa i`Fkd~ ls fopkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk D;¨afd laKku vijkèk d¢ fo#) fd;k tkrk gS] vfÒ;qDr d¢ fo#) ugha & laKku d¢ mijkar ;fn vfÒ;qDr d¨ leu fd;k tkrk gS r¨ mls vkns'k ij bl vkèkkj ij vk{ksi djus dk vfèkdkj gS fd ,slh d¨Ã lkexzh ugha gS ftld¢ vkèkkj ij mls leu fd;k tk,A ¼iSjk 14½
¼6½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & èkkjk 173 rFkk 190 & laKku & vkns'k eu¨fu;¨x d¢ vÒko ls xzLr & ekeys d¢ lqlaxr rF;¨a v©j lkexzh ij fopkj fd;k tkuk çdV ugha & vUos"k.k vfèkdkjh dh jk; d¢ çfrdwy jk; xfBr djus d¢ fy, rdZ.kk dk vÒko & vikLr fd, tkus ;¨X;A ¼iSjk 15½
¼7½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & èkkjk 173] 190 rFkk 197 & vUos"k.k can djus dk çfrosnu & fopkj d¢ çØe ij vR;fèkd yack v©j fo'ys"k.kkRed vkns'k visf{kr ugha & ;fn ekeyk vfrfjDr vUos"k.k d¢ funs'k d¢ lkFk okil Òstk tkrk gS r¨ vkns'k esa vfrfjDr vUos"k.k visf{kr ugha v©j vUos"k.k can djus dk çfrosnu Lohdkj ugha fd;k tkrk rc vkns'k esa] çfrosnu d¢ lkFk miyCèk vfÒdFku¨a d¢ leFkZu esa lkexzh v©j vUos"k.k vfèkdkjh dh jk; d¢ çfrdwy jk; d¢ lacaèk esa dkj.k la{ksi esa minf'kZr fd, tkuk vko';d & vUos"k.k can djus dh çkFkZuk ukeatwj djus d¢ fy, ek= ;g dguk i;kZIr ugha fd çFken`"V;k vijkèk fd, tkus dk lansg gS & vUos"k.k vfÒdj.k v©j vfÒ;qDr O;fDr;¨a d¢ eè; larqyu LFkkfir djus v©j U;k; lqfuf'pr djus d¢ fy, laf{kIr] lkad¢frd v©j vk[;kid vkns'k vko';dA ¼iSjk 16½
¼8½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & èkkjk 173 rFkk 190 & vUos"k.k can djus dk çfrosnu & laKku & eftLVªsV rFkk fo'ks"k U;k;kèkh'k d¨ vUos"k.k vfÒdj.k dh jk; ls ,der ugha g¨us dk vfèkdkj gS & U;kf;d v©fpR; dh vis{kk gS fd eftLVªsV ;k U;k;kèkh'k d¨ fÒUu fu"d"kZ ij igqapus d¢ fy, foo'k djus okys rF;] lkexzh v©j dkj.k crk, tk,aA ¼2010½ 4 ,l lh lh 785 rFkk ¼2009½ 9 ,l lh lh 219 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 19½

ORDER

Gupta, J.-- 1. This order shall govern disposal of the aforesaid both cases which have been filed challenging the common order dated 19.1.2018 passed by the Special Judge, Lokayukt Jabalpur in Crime No. 135/2011 whereby the closure report filed by the Special Police (Lokayukt) in respect of the accused persons under sections 13 (1) (d) read with section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under sections 109 and 120-B of the IPC has been disallowed directing the Lokayukt police to place all the original documents / records and the material collected during the investigation before the Sanctioning authority for obtaining sanction for prosecution against the concerned governments employees / accused persons.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondents namely Shivendra Singh, G. N. Singh, Tarun Kumar Anand, Shyam Mandal, S. C. Jain and Vishal Pachori (now dead) were posted at Jabalpur Development Authority, Jabalpur and were discharging their duties in their respective capacity and respondent S. K. Mahawar was posted at Town and Country Planning, District Jabalpur and was discharging his duty as Joint Director. Respondents Shankar Manchani (also Petitioner in M.Cr.C.No.5948/2020), Amit Dhawan, Suresh Dhawan and Raman Khanna are the private parties and were discharging their duties as Director of M/s. Shreeji Promoters and Developers Private Ltd. Faridabad, Haryana and respondent Bhupendra Singh was posted at Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur and discharging his duty as the then Building Officer and against them the allegations are that the Special Police (Lokayukt) made a search in the office and house of G. N. Singh, the then Executive Engineer / Land Acquisition officer posted in Jabalpur Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the “JDA”), Jabalpur with regard to disproportionate assets and on the basis of the documents seized during the search and investigation, a preliminary inquiry was conducted and prima facie it was revealed that in the auction of the land of Jabalpur Development Authority, a company, namely, M/s. Shreeji Promoters and Developers Private Limited without having any existence participated in the auction for purchasing of the commercial land on the basis of forged documents and tender was accepted and 120 square meters of land were also given unauthorizedly in addition to the tender terms and the premium which was to be recovered within 42 months was recovered in four years which caused loss of interest. Accordingly, M/s. Shreeji Promoters and Developers Private Limited dealt with in the manner which amounts to provide undue benefit to the private builders and caused loss to the Jabalpur Development Authority and the Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur and later-on, M/s. Shreeji Promoters and Developers Private Limited inducted Shankar Manchani, (Petitioner in MCrC No. 5948/2020 under section 482 of Cr.P.C.), as a Director in the Company and no transfer fees and stamp duty were paid and thereby loss was caused to the exchequer by the aforesaid officers of the Jabalpur Development Authority; the Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur and Town and Country Planning, Jabalpur who are the respondents/non-applicants in Criminal Revision No. 2049/2018.

3. Thereafter, a criminal case was registered and during investigation, first investigator was of the opinion that there is sufficient material to file charge sheet against the respondents / accused persons with regard to commission of the offence punishable under section 13 (1) (d) read with section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act read with section 109 and 120-B of IPC. Contrary to it, in further investigation, second Investigating Officer was of the opinion that there is no material to file charge sheet against the accused persons for commission of the aforesaid offence and accordingly, prima facie, no offence is made out against any of the accused persons. Therefore, the report in terms of closure report was filed before the Spec