P. DHARAMARAJ VERSUS SHANMUGAM & ORS

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1514 OF 2022

(Special Leave Petition (Crl.) NO.1354 of 2022)

P. DHARAMARAJ …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

SHANMUGAM & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)

With

CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. 15151516 OF 2022

(@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos..................... of 2022)

(@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) D.No.11748 of 2022)

J U D G M E N T

V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.

Permission to file Special Leave Petition(s) is granted in

D.No.11748 of 2022.

2. Leave granted.

3. There are three Special Leave Petitions on hand, two of which

challenge an Order passed by the High Court of Judicature at

Madras in a Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C”), quashing

a criminal complaint in CC No.25 of 2021 pending on the file of the

Additional Special Court for trial of cases related to Members of

Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu, on

the ground that all the victims have compromised their claims with

the accused. The third Special Leave Petition arises out of an order

of dismissal passed by the High Court in a Criminal Miscellaneous

Petition filed by a third party by name Anti Corruption Movement,

seeking the recall of the order dated 30.07.2021 in the quash

petition.

4. We have heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the

parties, which include the de facto complainant, persons named as

accused as well as third parties who claim to be interested/

affected, albeit indirectly.

Background Facts

5. The brief facts sufficient for the disposal of these special leave

petitions are as follows:

(i) On a complaint lodged by one K. Arulmani, working in the

technical wing of the factory of the Metropolitan Transport

Corporation of Tamil Nadu, a FIR in Crime No. 344 of 2018 was

registered on 13.08.2018. To avoid any confusion, the contents of

the said complaint are extracted as follows:

“I have been working as a Worker in the Technical Wing of the

Factory of Metropolitan Transport Corporation (MTC), at

Perambur. In the year 2014, an announcement in regard to

vacancies existing for the posts of Conductor and Driver in the

Transport Department. When I went to our Head Office in

Pallavan Salai in connection with work, one Mr. Rajkumar got

introduced to me. He told me that he hails from Pambaipadayur

near Kumbakonam and he had got close contact with the then

Transport Minister, Mr.Senthil Balaji and his younger brother

Asok Kumar, through one Mr. Shanmugam, who was the

Personal Assistant to Mr. Senthil Baljai and on paying money,

jobs would certainly be got. My friends by name Ambedkar,

Senthil, Vijayakanth, Muthiah and a few others told to get them

jobs in the Transport Corporation and they are ready to pay

money for the same.

I told that money was to be given to through one Mr.Rajkumar

and should there surface any problem, we should be ready to

face the same. They also, agreeing to the same, paid me money,

in several installments during the period from 25.12.2014 to

04.01.2015, amounting to Rs.40,00,000/. conveyed those

details to Mr. Rajkumar. In the first week of January 2015, he

and myself went to the house of Thiru Senthil Balaji at R.A.

Puram. At that time, Mr. Shanmugam, P.A. to Thiru Senthil Balaji

came towards me and received the sum of Rs.40,00,000/. We

insisted on Thiru Shanmugam to see Thiru Asok Kumar and

Thiru Senthil Balaji in person. Thiru Asok Kumar, who came

there, when we gave the amount, had assured that all who have

paid amounts would issued with appointment orders. He took us

then itself to Thiru Senthil Balaji. He told in an assuring voice

that there is no need to worry and all those who gave money

would be definitely given appointment orders.

In the list of names released by the Transport Corporation, the

names of persons for whom I gave money, have not appeared in

list of appointments. Hence, persons who gave money to me

started pestering me to return the money. When I asked about it

to Thiru Rajkumar, he told that in the next list, their names

would definitely come. But in the next list also, names of none

came. When I informed this to Thiru Rajkumar, he said that he

would enquire about the same to Asok Kumar and Shanmugam

and then he would say. But each time when I asked Rajkumar,

giving me the very same reply, asked me to wait for some time.

Persons who gave me money, started threatening me. On their

insistence, I gave them my cheques from my savings bank

account with Canara Bank, Ambatur Branch, as security.

In pursuance of that, when I asked Rajkumar on 12.10.2015 for

returning the money, he gave me two cheques drawn on City

Union Bank, Mount Road Branch, filling each cheque with a sum

of Rs.15,00,000/ He told me to deposit the said cheques for

collection at the time when he instructs, on his being paid repaid

the amounts by Thiru Senthil Balaji, Asok Kumar and

Shanmugam and the balance sum of Rs.10,00,000/ would be

given by him later on. When I went to City Union Bank, Mount

Road Branch and checked whether there are sufficient amounts

in their accounts, the Bank Officer said that there were no

sufficient funds. When I met Raj Kumar, Shanmugam and Asok

Kumar several times and requested for returning the money, they

asked me to wait for some time. Persons who gave me money

started pestering me very much demanding money. In October

2016, when I met Messrs Senthil Balaji, his younger brother

Asok Kumar, and P.A Shanmugam and Rajkumar, and entreated

them to return the money to me, after explaining my pathetic

position, each one of them said that they cannot return the

amount, nothing can be done against them and if I give them

trouble demanding money, they would liquidate me along with

my family. I am living daily in consternation along with my two

children. As Thiru Senthil Balaji was a Minister then and

subsequently a MLA in the ruling party, the situation posing

threat to my life in the event of my lodging a complaint against

him, was in existence. I came forward to give the complaint now,

since he is not holding any post. I therefore humbly request you

to kindly initiate appropriate legal action against Messrs Senthil

Balaji, Asok Kumar, Shanmugam and Raj Kumar for their acts of

fraud, deception and also the threats unleashed against me and

get me back the sum of Rs.40,00,000/ payable to me by all of

them.”

(ii) The FIR was for alleged offences under Sections 405, 420 and

506(1) of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”). Four persons by

name Shri Senthil Balaji (the then Transport Minister), Shri Ashok

Kumar (the brother of the Minister), Shri Shanmugam (Personal

Assistant to the Minister) and Shri Raj Kumar were cited as the

accused in the FIR.

(iii) After investigation, the police filed a final report dated

12.04.2019 under Section 173(2)(i) of Cr.P.C., against all the four

accused named in the First Information Report. The final report

indicted the persons named as accused, for alleged offences under

Sections 406, 409, 420, 506(1) read with Section 34 IPC. The

Special Court for trial of cases related to Members of Parliament

and Members of Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu took the final

report on file in CC No.25 of 2021.

(iv) Shri Shanmugam, named as accused No.3 then filed a

criminal original petition in Criminal O.P. No.13374 of 2021 on the

file of the High Court of Judicature at Madras under Section 482 of

the Cr.P.C. praying for quashing the criminal complaint CC No.25

of 2021.

(v) Before the High Court, the de facto complainant Shri K.

Arulmani filed an affidavit supporting the accused and praying for

quashing of the final report, on the ground that what the victims

had with the accused was only a money dispute and that the same

had been settled out of Court and that due to political rivalry

between two groups, his complaint got converted into a more

serious one, by including unwarranted statements which were not

made by him.

(vi) The victims who originally claimed to have paid money for

procuring employment, also filed individual affidavits supporting

the accused.

(vii) A joint compromise memo dated 28.7.2021 containing the

signatures of 13 victims (who had paid money) on the one hand and

accused No.3 on the other hand was also filed before the High

Court.

(viii) When the quash petition came up for hearing, the learned

Government Advocate appearing for the State made a submission

that the occurrence took place in the year 2014 and that the matter

was compromised between the accused and the victims in the year

2019 after the filing of the final report.

(ix) Interestingly, all the 13 victims also appeared before the

learned Judge of the High Court of Madras through Video

Conference and claimed that the issues have been resolved between

them and the accused.

(x) In the light of what had transpired after the filing of the final

report, the High Court passed an order dated 30.07.2021 quashing

the criminal complaint on the ground that “by passage of time, the

parties have decided to bury their hatchet and that no useful purpose

would be achieved by keeping the criminal case pending”. After

noticing that the offences are not compoundable in nature, the High

Court recorded in one sentence that it had taken note of the

guidelines issued by this Court in Parbatbhai Aahir @

Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Ors. vs. State of

Gujarat1

and The State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Dhruv Gurjar

and Another2 and concluded that the complaint could be quashed.

(xi) Upon coming to know of the quashing of the complaint, a

person by name Shri P.Dharamaraj, who participated in the process

of selection for appointment to the post of drivers/conductors in the

Metropolitan Transport Corporation, but who did not get selected,

has come up with one special leave petition contending that what

happened was a cashforjob scam and that he would have got

selected if the scam had not taken place. Since he was not a party

to the quash proceedings before the High Court, his special leave

petition was accompanied by an application for leave to file Special

1 (2017) 9 SCC 641

2 (2019) 2 MLJ Crl 10

Leave Petition. The said application was allowed by this Court on

11.02.2022.

(xii) In the meantime, an organisation by name Anti Corruption

Movement, moved a Miscellaneous Petition before the High Court

seeking recall of the order dated 30.07.2021 on the ground that the

complaint involved allegations of corruption and abuse of official

position and that therefore the chargesheet could not have been

quashed on the basis of a compromise between the parties. This

application for recall was rejected by the High Court by an Order

dated 14.03.2022, primarily on the ground that this Court has

already entertained a special leave petition against the order sought

to be recalled.

(xiii) Therefore, challenging the original order dated

30.07.2011 and the order dated 14.03.2022, the said Association,

namely, Anti Corruption Movement has come up with two special

leave petitions.

6. Before we proceed further, it is necessary to take note of the

fact that there are a few interlocutory applications whose details

are as follows:

 IA No.49555/2022 filed by Anti Corruption Movement

seeking intervention in SLP (Crl.) No.1354 of 2022 filed by

Dharamaraj;

 IA No.59173/2022 filed by the appellant in SLP (Crl.)

No.1354 of 2022, for impleading the four persons named as

accused.

 IA No.59176/2022 filed by the appellant in SLP (Crl.)

No.1354 of 2022 seeking the appointment of a Senior Advocate as

Special Public Prosecutor to conduct the trial.

 IA Nos.126399 and 126400 of 2022 filed by one Y. Balaji,

who did not get selected for the post of conductor/driver, seeking

impleadment and the appointment of an impartial Special Public

Prosecutor.

 IA No.108569/2022 filed by one Shri S. Prithvirajan, who

claims to be a victim due to nonselection, for impleading himself

as party to the special leave petition.

Rival Contentions

7. Assailing the order of the High Court, it is contended by Shri

Siddharth Bhatnagar & Shri Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned

senior counsel, that it is shocking to see that a matter of this

nature, where the bribegiver and bribetaker have come together,

has been allowed to be closed on the basis of a compromise memo;

that the original complainant Shri Arulmani was himself an

employee of the Metropolitan Transport Corporation and

consequently a public servant; that the allegations revolved

around payment of money to the then Transport Minister through

his Personal Assistant for procuring appointment in the

Metropolitan Transport Corporation; and that, therefore, the High

court committed a serious illegality in quashing the complaint on

the basis of a compromise, despite the fact that even the offences

indicated in the chargesheet are not compoundable. The learned

senior counsel drew our attention to the counter affidavit filed by

the Investigation Officer before the High Court of Judicature at

Madras in a writ petition in WP No.9061 of 2021 to highlight that

the allegations are of serious nature warranting a prosecution

under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “P.C. Act”)

and argued that the shocking manner in which the High Court

had handled it, deserves special attention, if not special treatment.

8. Shri Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for Anti

Corruption Movement, which is the appellant in 2 of the appeals,

contended that the prosecution itself was guilty of not including in

the chargesheet the offences under the P.C Act and that even the

opportunity now available to the Court under Section 216 of the

Cr.P.C. is nipped in the bud by the High Court allowing a

compromise and quashing the complaint.

9. Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel appearing for

the first respondent in these special leave petitions and who was

the petitioner before the High Court in the quash petition,

supported the order of the High Court contending inter alia that

the statements of the victims did not make out a case for

prosecution of the accused under the P.C Act; that this is why the

final report filed by the police did not implicate the accused for

any offence under the P.C Act; that the prosecution was

constrained to include Section 409 IPC only because of a

statement as though respondent No.1 was a Personal Assistant to

the then Minister (A1); that however no such order of

appointment of respondent No.1 as the Personal Assistant to the

Minister was ever brought on record; that in the Additional

Affidavit filed by respondent No.1, he categorically denied any

association with the Minister as his Personal Assistant; that an

attempt was made earlier, by two other individuals who made

similar allegations against the then Transport Minister (present A1), by filing petitions in Criminal O.P. (MD) No.14067 and 14967 of

2016, seeking a direction to the police to register a complaint and

investigate into the same; that during the pendency of those

petitions, a criminal complaint came to be registered in Crime

No.15 of 2016; that one of the accused (the Managing Director of

the Transport Corporation) immediately filed a quash petition in

Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 16023 of 2016 in which the Transport Minister

also got impleaded; that all those 3 criminal original petitions were

heard together by the High Court; that by a final Order dated

19.09.2016 the petitions seeking a direction for registering a

complaint were rejected but the petition for quashing the

complaint was allowed; that the common order so passed by the

High Court on 19.09.2016 in Criminal O.P. (MD) Nos. 14067,

14967 and 16023 of 2016 was challenged before this Court by a

third party, by way of special leave petitions; that by an order

dated 05.01.2017 this Court refused to grant leave to the third

party to file special leave petitions; that the first attempt so made

by 2 individuals way back in 2016 to somehow implicate the

Minister thus failed; and that, therefore, the High Court was right

in this case, in putting to rest, the repeated attempts made by

rivals in politics to nix the accused.

10. Shri Mukul Rohtagi, learned senior counsel appearing for

Shri Arulmani, on whose complaint the FIR in Crime No.344 of

2018 was registered on 13.08.2018, also supported the impugned

order of the High Court by contending inter alia that the

allegations made in the complaint did not make out a case for

prosecution under the P.C Act; that the affidavits filed by all the so

called victims before the High Court made it crystal clear that it

was a simple money dispute; that the allegations complained of

against the accused do not constitute offences against the State

but revolved around a private dispute with regard to payment of

money; that even in cases arising out of a prosecution under the

P.C Act, this Court held in Sanjay Tiwari vs. State of Uttar

Pradesh & Another.3

that a third party, who is neither a victim

nor an accused, cannot poke his nose into the criminal

proceedings; that therefore, the appellants in the above appeals

have no locus standi to question the order of the High Court; and

that in the light of the contents of the affidavit filed by the de facto

complainantShri Arulmani before the High Court, no conclusion

other than the one reached by the High Court is possible.

11. Shri C.A. Sundaram, learned senior counsel appearing for

A1 contended inter alia, that the appellants who have approached

this Court have no locus standi to interfere with the proceedings

initiated at the behest of individual complainants; that the

appellants have taken cudgels on behalf of the political rivals, to

undo a compromise reached between a few individual

complainants and persons who received money from them; that

the parameters laid down by this Court for closing criminal cases

on the basis of the compromise reached between parties even in

the case of noncompoundable offences, have been followed

3 2020 SCC Online SC 1027

properly by the High Court in this case; and that since allegations

of corruption are not made out in this case, there is no element of

public interest involved. According to the learned senior counsel

for A1, the appellants are relying heavily upon other cases filed

under the P.C Act, to upset a compromise reached in a case which

does not concern allegations under the P.C Act.

12. Shri Manan Kumar Mishra, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for respondent No.1 contended that the attempt of the

appellants herein is only to harass the Minister. According to the

learned senior counsel, there are two other pending complaints

where allegations under the P.C Act are included. The appellants

have already impleaded themselves as parties to those criminal

complaints. Therefore, it is contended by Shri Manan Kumar

Mishra that the whole exercise is unwarranted and nothing but

witch hunting. Insofar as persons who claim to be victims due to

their nonselection for appointment to the post of

conductors/drivers are concerned, it is contended by Shri Manan

Kumar Mishra that they have already filed writ petitions

challenging their nonselection and hence their remedy does not

lie in the present proceedings.

13. Shri S. Prabhakaran, learned Senior Counsel contended that

the Minister concerned was a member of the splinter group which

revolted against those in office during the previous regime and

that therefore the present criminal complaints came to be

registered at the behest of his political opponents and that the

same group is now targeting him as he had again become a

Minister in the present regime. Therefore, the learned Senior

Counsel submitted that this Court should see through this game

before being swayed by legal nuances.

Discussion and Analysis

14. In a nutshell, the rival contentions revolve around three

important issues. They are: (i) the locus standi of the appellants;

(ii) the effect of the compromise entered into between the de facto

complainant and 13 named victims on the one hand and the four

accused on the other hand; and (iii) the noninclusion in the

chargesheet of the offences under the P.C. Act.

Locus standi

15. The preliminary objection of the respondents to the locus

standi of the appellants, has to be rejected outright, for several

reasons. The first is that in the counter affidavit filed by the

Assistant Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch, Job

Racket Wing, Chennai, to the writ petition WP No.9061 of 2021, he

has narrated certain sequence of events which are as follows:

(i) Pursuant to an order passed by the High Court on

09.06.2014 in Writ Appeal No.1027 of 2013, directing all

appointments in all Government departments to be made only

after due notification to the public in Newspapers besides

sponsorship from the Employment Exchange, the Secretary to

Government, Employment and Training Department sent a

communication to the Managing Directors of all State Transport

Undertakings on 30.07.2014 to follow the directions of the High

Court in the matter of appointments;

(ii) All the representatives of all the State Transport

undertakings resolved in a meeting held on 06.10.2014 to conduct

future recruitments only after inviting applications from the open

market through newspaper advertisements apart from getting a

list of candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange;

(iii) Thereafter, Thiru Senthil Balaji, the then Transport Minister

(A1 in the present case) instructed the officers to collect details

regarding the daytoday progress of the recruitment in all 8

Transport Corporations of the State;

(iv) These communications were directed to be transmitted to the

Minister’s office via email and the mail box was operated and

maintained by Shri B. Shanmugam and not by any of the other

Personal Assistants of the Minister;

(v) The advertisements for recruitment were issued in

newspapers on 02.11.2014. Simultaneously, the lists of eligible

candidates were also invited from the concerned Employment

Exchanges;

(vi) A total of 22602 applications were issued to the aspirants

during the period from 03.11.2014 to 20.11.2014;

(vii) These 22,602 applications related to the posts of Reserved

Crew Driver, Reserved Crew Conductor, Junior Tradesman, Junior

Engineer and Assistant Engineer;

(viii) The total number of filled in applications received from the

candidates was 16081;

(ix) But 12765 candidates attended the interview;

(x) Orders of appointment were issued to 2209 candidates from

the list given by the Minister;

(xi) There were 5542 other eligible candidates;

(xii) Many of the note files have been created without any date;

(xiii) Appointment orders were issued to candidates whose names

were contained in the list sent by the Transport Minister through

his associate Shanmugam.

16. From what is extracted above from the counter affidavit of

the Investigation Officer filed in a connected writ petition, it is

clear that even according to the Investigating Officer, persons

who claim to have paid money, but did not receive orders of

appointment, were not the only victims. Persons who were

more meritorious, but who did not get selected, on account of

being edged out by candidates who paid money and got

selected, are also victims of the alleged corrupt practices, if

those allegations are eventually proved. Shri P. Dharamaraj,

who is the appellant in one of these appeals, claims to be a

candidate who participated in the selection, but could not make it.

There is also an intervenor by name Shri Prithivirajan who was the

petitioner in WP No.9061 of 2021, in which the counter affidavit

referred to in the preceding paragraph was filed by the

Investigation Officer. This candidate was not selected and

according to him, he would have got selected, had there been no

corrupt practices on the part of the concerned.

17. Even the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondents could not contest the position that a victim is entitled

to file an appeal against the impugned order of the High Court. If

persons who participated in the selection process but who

could not make it to the final list of selected candidates on

account of the alleged corrupt practices adopted by those in

power are not victims, we do not know who else could be a

victim.

18. We cannot shy away from the fact that candidates, who are

selected and appointed to posts in the Government/public

corporations by adopting corrupt practices, are eventually called

upon to render public service. It is needless to say that the quality

of public service rendered by such persons will be inversely

proportionate to the corrupt practices adopted by them. Therefore,

the public, who are recipients of these services, also become

victims, though indirectly, because the consequences of such

appointments get reflected sooner or later in the work performed

by the appointees. Hence, to say that the appellants have no locus

standi, is to deny the existence of what is obvious.

19. The decision in Sanjay Tiwari (supra), relied upon by Shri

Mukul Rohtagi, learned senior Counsel for the de facto

complainant, is of no application to the case on hand. The appeal

in Sanjay Tiwari’s case arose out of an application for expediting

the trial of a criminal case pending on the file of the Special Judge,

Gorakhpur, for alleged offences under Sections 420, 467, 468,

471, 477A, 120B IPC and Section 13(1)(c)(d) read with Section

13(2) of P.C. Act. The said application for expediting the trial was

moved by a person who was neither the victim nor the accused.

Therefore, this Court found out that a person who has nothing to

do with the pending trial, cannot seek to expedite the trial,

Paragraphs 11 to 15 of the said decision on which heavy reliance

is placed read as follows:

“11. It is well settled that criminal trial where offences involved

are under the Prevention of Corruption Act have to be

conducted and concluded at the earliest since the offences

under Prevention of Corruption Act are offences which affect not

only the accused but the entire society and administration. It is

also well settled that the 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 the criminal trial and

issue such order as may be necessary. But the present is a case

where proceeding initiated by respondent No. 2 does not appear

to be a bona fide proceeding. Respondent No. 2 is in no way

connected with initiation of criminal proceeding against the

appellant. Respondent No. 2 in his application under Section

482 Cr. P. C in paragraph 6 has described him as social activist

and an Advocate. An application by a person who is in no way

connected with the criminal proceeding or criminal trial under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot ordinarily be entertained by the

High Court. A criminal trial of an accused is conducted in

accordance with procedure as prescribed by the Criminal

Procedure Code. It is the obligation of the State and the

prosecution to ensure that all criminal trials are conducted

expeditiously so that justice can be delivered to the 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.

12. With regard to locus of a third party to challenge the

criminal proceedings or to seek relief in respect of criminal

proceedings of accused had been dealt with by this Court

Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary,(1991) 3 SCC 756. In the above

case the CBI had registered FIR under the IPC as well as under

the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 against 14 accused. On

an application filed by the CBI the learned trial Judge allowing

the application to the extent that request to conduct necessary

investigation and to collect necessary evidence which can be

collected in Switzerland passed order on 05.02.1990 which is to

the following effect:

“In the result, the application of the CBI is allowed to the

extent that a request to conduct the necessary investigation and

to collect necessary evidence which can be collected in

Switzerland and to the extent directed in this order shall be

made to the Competent Judicial Authorities of the

Confederation of Switzerland through filing of the

requisite/proper undertaking required by the Swiss law and

assurance for reciprocity.”

13. A criminal miscellaneous application was filed by Shri

H.S. Chowdhary seeking various prayers before the Special

Judge which petition was dismissed by the Special Judge. A

criminal Revision under Sections 397/482 Cr. P.C. was filed by

H.S. Chowdhary in the High Court to quash the order of the

Special Judge, which Revision was also dismissed by the High

Court. The appeals were filed in this Court by different parties

challenging the said order including H.S. Chowdhary. This

court while dismissing the appeals filed by the H.S. Chowdhary

and others made the following observations:

“26. Even if there are million question of law to be deeply

gone into and examined in the criminal case of this nature

registered against specified accused persons, it is for them and

them alone to raise all such questions and challenge the

proceedings initiated against them at the appropriate time

before the proper forum and not for third parties under the garb

of public interest litigants.

“27. We, in the above background of the case, after

bestowing our anxious and painstaking consideration and

careful thought to all aspects of the case and deeply examining

the rival contentions of the parties both collectively and

individually give our conclusions as follows:

1. Mr. H.S. Chowdhary has no locus standi (a) to file

the petition under Article 51A as a public interest litigant

praying that no letter rogatory/request be issued at the

request of the CBI and he be permitted to join the inquiry

before the Special Court which on 5.2.90 directed issuance

of letter rogatory/request to the Competent Judicial

Authorities of the Confederation of Switzerland; (b) to

invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under

Section 397 read with 401 of the CrPC challenging the

correctness, legality or propriety of the order dated 18.8.90

of the Special Judge; and (c) to invoke the extraordinary

jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the

CrPC for quashing the First Information Report dated

22.1.90 and all other proceedings arsing therefrom on the

plea of preventing the abuse of the process of the Court.

28. In the result, we agree with the first part of the Order dated

19.12.90 of Mr. Justice M.K Chawla holding that Mr. H.S.

Chowdhary and other intervening parties have no locus standi. We,

however, set aside the second part of the impugned order whereby

he has taken suo moto cognizance and issued show cause notice to

the State and CBI and accordingly the show cause notice issued by

him is quashed.”

14. This Court in the above case laid down that it is for the

parties in the criminal case to raise all the questions and

challenge the proceedings initiate against them at appropriate

time before the proper forum and not for third parties under the

grab of Public Interest Litigants.

15. We are fully satisfied that respondent No. 2 has no locus

in the present case to file application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

asking the Court to expedite the hearing in criminal trial. We

have already observed that all criminal trials where offences

involved under the prevention of Corruption Act have to be

concluded at an early date and normally no exception can be

taken to the order of the High Court directing the trial court to

expedite the criminal trial but in the present case the fact is

that proceedings have been initiated by respondent No. 2 who

was not concerned with the proceedings is any manner and the

respondent No. 2 has no locus to file application which was not

clearly maintainable, we are of the view that the impugned

judgment of the High Court dated 09.09.2020 cannot be

sustained.”

20. All that this Court pointed out in paragraph 11 of the decision

in Sanjay Tiwari (supra) was that an application for expediting the

trial, filed by a person who is in no way connected with the criminal

proceeding or criminal trial cannot “ordinarily be entertained by

the High Court.”

21. The decision in Janata Dal vs. H.S Chowdhary and

Others4

cited in paragraphs 12 and 13 of Sanjay Tiwari also has

no application to the case on hand. In Janata Dal (supra), which

arose out of Bofors case, the Special Court allowed an application

of CBI to conduct necessary investigation and to collect necessary

evidence, in Switzerland. A letter rogatory was also issued. At that

stage an Advocate by name H.S. Chowdhary filed a petition in

public interest before the Special Judge, invoking Article 51A of

the Constitution. He sought several reliefs including a direction

not to issue letter rogatory and to allow him to join the enquiry

before the Special Court in the capacity of a public interest

4 (1991) 3 SCC 756

litigant. The Special Court dismissed the petition filed by H.S.

Chowdhary, but took up for consideration suo moto, the question

as to whether any action under Section 340 of the Cr.PC. should

be initiated or not. The order of the Special Judge was challenged

by H.S. Chowdhary by way of revision before the High Court. The

High Court held that H.S. Chowdhary did not have any locus

standi to maintain the petition. It was the said order that was

challenged by H.S. Chowdhary before this Court. The order of the

Special Judge taking suo moto action was also challenged by

political parties.

22. While disposing of those appeals, this Court held that a third

party has no locus standi in a matter of this nature. It must be

noted that the attempt made by H.S. Chowdhary was to upset the

move initiated by CBI to have a letter rogatory issued. He also

wanted the FIR to be quashed. It is in that context that this Court

answered the question of locus standi as aforesaid.

23. Today, we have travelled a long way from the position of law

as it stood then. By Act 5 of 2009, the definition of the word

“victim” was inserted in Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C. It reads thus:

“victim” means a person who has suffered any loss or injury

caused by reason of the act or omission for which the accused

person has been charged and the expression “victim” includes

his or her guardian or legal heir.”

Simultaneously, a proviso was also inserted under Section 372 of

the Code providing a right of appeal to the victims.

24. In fact, long before the aforesaid amendment, the question of

locus standi was considered by this Court in P.S.R.

Sadhanantham vs. Arunachalam and Another5

. The said case

arose under peculiar circumstances. A person who was convicted

by the Sessions Court for an offence under Section 302 and whose

conviction was set aside by the High Court, was convicted by this

Court in a criminal appeal, filed not by the State, but by the

brother of the victim, though he was neither the complainant nor

the first informant. Thereafter, the accused filed a writ petition

under Article 32 contending that this Court had no power to grant

5 (1980) 3 SCC 141

special leave to the brother of the victim to file an appeal against

the judgment of the High Court. While rejecting the contention,

Hon’ble Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer (as he then was) said in his

inimitable style:

“……the bogey of busybodies blackmailing adversaries through

frivolous invocation of Article136 is chimerical. Access to Justice to

every bona fide seeker is a democratic dimension of remedial

jurisprudence even as public interest litigation, class action, pro bono

proceedings, etc. We cannot dwell in the home of processual

obsolescence when our Constitution highlights social justice as a goal.”

Therefore, the objection about the locus standi of the appellants is

without any merit. In any case, the appellant in one of these

appeals, is a victim, as he could not get selected on account of the

alleged corrupt practices. Therefore, the contention regarding the

locus standi of the appellants is to be rejected.

25. In fact, it is surprising that the de facto complainant Shri

Arulmani has raised the question of locus standi. It is seen from

his complaint dated 13.08.2018 that he is working in the

Technical Wing of the factory of the Metropolitan Transport

Corporation. Therefore, he should not have, in the first instance,

become a party to the transactions narrated in his complaint.

After having been a party to the collection of money for illegitimate

purposes, even while working in the Transport Corporation, the de

facto complainant Shri Arulmani has committed the second

mistake of filing an affidavit supporting the compromise and

claiming therein as though he never made allegations against the

Minister.

26. The stand taken by Arulmani before the High Court is

deplorable for one more reason. It is seen from an entry in the FIR

out of which the present case arises, that Arulmani filed a criminal

original petition in Crl. O.P.No. 24029 of 2017 on the file of the

High Court, complaining that he lodged a complaint against these

4 accused way back on 21.09.2017 and that no action was taken.

On 16.11.2017, the High Court passed an order directing the

Police to act in accordance with the law laid down by this Court in

Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradeshand Others6

. It

is only thereafter that the Police registered the FIR in Crime No.

344 of 2018 on 13.08.2018. Therefore, we would have hardly

6 (2014) 2 SCC 1

expected Shri Arulmani to say that the allegations against the

Minister were added up later by the Police and that it was a simple

money dispute. His present stand supporting the accused and

questioning the locus standi of the appellants, is, to say the least,

shocking and warrants something more than mere condemnation.

We leave it at that in the hope that the employer and the State

would take notice of his conduct. Suffice it to say for our present

purpose that the objection relating to the locus standi of the

appellants is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, it is rejected.

The Effect of the compromise and the noninclusion of the

offences under the P.C. Act

27. The second issue arising for consideration is about the effect

of the compromise entered into between the de facto complainant

and 13 named victims on the one hand and the 4 accused on the

other hand.

28. As we have pointed out earlier, the FIR was registered only for

offences under Sections 405, 420 & 506(1) of the IPC. This was

despite the fact that the allegations contained in the complaint very

clearly pointed to payment of money for procuring employment in

the Public Transport Corporation. We have already extracted the

entire complaint in paragraph 5(i) above. It was stated in the said

complaint that in the year 2014, an announcement for filling up

vacant posts of Conductor and Driver in the Transport Corporation

was issued and that the complainant got introduced to one Mr.

Rajkumar. In fact there is also an averment in the complaint that in

the first week of January 2015, the complainant went along with

the said Rajkumar to the residence of Thiru Senthil Balaji at R.A.

Puram and that the amount of Rs.40 lakhs was paid therein to Shri

Shanmugam, P.A. to the Minister. The complainant had gone on to

state that upon his insistence, he was allowed to meet the Minister

and his brother and that the Minister and his brother assured him

that all those who gave money would definitely be given

appointment orders.

29. It must be recalled that though the FIR came to be registered

only on 13.08.2018, it was actually in pursuance of an order passed

by the High Court on 16.11.2017 in Crl. O.P. No. 24029 of 2017.

Therefore, we are surprised that the FIR did not include the

offences under the P.C. Act, 1988.

30. While filing a final report, the Investigation Officer seems to

have been little more gracious by including Section 409 IPC, since

Sh. Shanmugam, the person who received the money from the

complainant and the victims was stated to be a Personal Assistant

to the Minister. Additionally, the money was said to have been paid

at the residence of the Minister with his knowledge and the Minister

is stated (in the FIR) to have acknowledged that those who paid

money will be rewarded with the appointment orders.

31. Thus it is clear that the final report implicated the accused for

offences under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 506(1) IPC. None of

these offences except the one under Section 506 IPC is

compoundable under subSection (1) of Section 320, Cr.P.C. The

offences under Sections 406 and 420 are compoundable under subSection (2) of Section 320.

32. Subsection (9) of Section 320 makes it clear that no offence

shall be compounded except as provided by the Section. Therefore,

there was no way the offence under Section 409 IPC, included in

the final report, could have been compounded. As a matter of fact,

the High Court has recognised in the penultimate paragraph of the

impugned order that the final report includes offences which are

not compoundable. However, the High Court proceeded to quash

the final report, purportedly on the basis of the guidelines issued by

this Court in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai (supra) and The

State of Madhya Pradesh (supra). Therefore we may now proceed

to examine whether the High Court was right in doing so.

33. In Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another7

, a three

Member Bench of this Court was concerned with a reference made

by a two Member Bench, which doubted the correctness of the

decisions in B.S. Joshi and Others vs. State of Haryana and

another8

, Nikhil Merchant vs. Central Bureau of Investigation

and Anr.

and Manoj Sharma vs. State and Others10

7 (2012) 10 SCC 303

8 (2003) 4 SCC 675

9 (2008) 9 SCC 677

10 (2008) 16 SCC 1

34. B.S. Joshi (supra) was a case where the dispute was a family

dispute and the offences complained were under Sections 498A,

323 and 406. Therefore, this Court appears to have taken a lenient

view.

35. Nikhil Merchant (supra) is a case where a borrower

committed default in repayment of the loans taken from Andhra

Bank. Apart from filing a suit for recovery of money, the Bank also

filed a criminal complaint both against the officers of the company

and against the officers of the bank, not only for offences under the

IPC but also for offences under the PC Act. After the suit was

compromised, the Managing Director of the borrower Company

sought to get discharged from the complaint. The special Judge

(CBI) rejected the application for discharge. The High Court

confirmed the same. But this Court reversed the decision of the

High Court, solely on the ground that the amount payable to the

Bank stood settled. However, it must be noticed that in Nikhil

Merchant, the operative portion of the order of this Court merely

stated that the criminal proceedings were quashed against the

appellant therein. There is no indication therein that the

complaint against the officers for offences under the P.C. Act were

also quashed.

36. Manoj Sharma (supra) was a case where the offences

complained were under Sections 420, 468, 471, 34 read with

Section 120B IPC. Though this Court quashed the criminal

complaint in the said case also, one of the learned Judges

constituting the Bench (Markandey Katju, J.) reserved the

question regarding the power of the High Court to quash noncompoundable cases under Section 482 Cr.P.C or Article 226 of the

Constitution, on the basis of the compromise reached between the

parties, to be decided by a larger bench at an appropriate time.

Paragraph 27 of the decision in Manoj Sharma which contains the

opinion of Markandey Katju, J., reads as follows:

“27. There can be no doubt that a case under Section 302 IPC

or other serious offences like those under Sections 395, 307 or

304B cannot be compounded and hence proceedings in those

provisions cannot be quashed by the High Court in exercise of

its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or in writ jurisdiction on

the basis of compromise. However, in some other cases, (like

those akin to a civil nature) the proceedings can be quashed by

the High Court if the parties have come to an amicable

settlement even though the provisions are not compoundable.

Where a line is to be drawn will have to be decided in some later

decisions of this Court, preferably by a larger bench (so as to

make it more authoritative). Some guidelines will have to be

evolved in this connection and the matter cannot be left at the

sole unguided discretion of Judges, otherwise there may be

conflicting decisions and judicial anarchy. A judicial discretion

has to be exercised on some objective guiding principles and

criteria, and not on the whims and fancies of individual Judges.

Discretion, after all, cannot be the Chancellor's foot.”

37. Therefore in Gian Singh (supra), the three Member Bench of

this Court took up for consideration the question regarding the

difference between the power of the court to quash a

complaint/chargesheet and the power to compound an offence.

After analysing the statutory provisions and the various decisions of

this Court, this Court summarised the position, in paragraph 61 of

its decision in Gian Singh, as follows:

“The position that emerges from the above discussion can be

summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a

criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its

inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power

given to a criminal court for compounding the offences

under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide

plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised

in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to

secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process

of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal

proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the

offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on

the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can

be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High

Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the

crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or

offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly

quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the

offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private

in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any

compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the

offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption

Act or the offences committed by public servants while working

in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing

criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal

cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour

stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing,

particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial,

mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the

offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the

family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal

in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In

this category of cases, the High Court may quash criminal

proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between

the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote

and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the

accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme

injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal

case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with

the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider

whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice

to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the

criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of

law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and

wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is

appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the

answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court

shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal

proceeding.”

38. After Gian Singh, this Court was concerned in Narinder

Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Another11 with the

perennial problem of courts swinging from one extreme to the other

in respect of cases involving offences under Section 307 IPC. A via

media was struck by this Court in the said decision, by holding that

it would be open to the High Court to go into the nature of the

injury sustained, nature of the weapons used etc. This was after

holding that an offence under Section 307 would fall in the category

of heinous and serious offence.

39. Then came the decision in State of Maharashtra through

Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Vikram Anantrai Doshi

and Others12

, where this Court was concerned with an order of the

High Court of Bombay quashing the criminal proceedings for

offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 & 471 read

with Section 120B IPC. It was a case involving credit facilities

provided by the Banks and the failure of the borrowers to repay the

11 (2014) 6 SCC 466

12 (2014) 15 SCC 29

loan. After the debts due to the bank were assigned in favour of an

Asset Reconstruction Company, a settlement was reached and the

borrower took a “No Due Certificate”. Therefore, relying upon the

decisions of this Court in Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of

Punjab13 and Central Bureau of Investigation vs. A.

Ravishankar Prasad and Others14, the High Court of Bombay

quashed the proceedings on the ground that no useful purpose

would be served by allowing the matter to proceed for trial. It is

interesting to note that Madan Mohan (supra), as seen from the

last paragraph of the order, was passed in the peculiar facts of the

case. But in so far as A. Ravishankar Prasad (supra) is

concerned, the High Court quashed the proceedings on the basis of

a settlement reached between the borrowers and the Indian Bank.

But the decision of the High Court was over turned, by a two Judge

Bench of this Court even after taking note of B.S.Joshi and Nikhil

13 (2008) 4 SCC 582

14 (2009) 6 SCC 351

Merchant. In paragraph 46 of its decision, this Court said in A.

Ravishankar Prasad :

“46. Before parting with the case we would like to observe that

mere repayment of loan under a settlement cannot exempt the

accused from the criminal proceeding in the facts of this case.”

40. Therefore, in Vikram Anantrai Doshi (supra), this Court took

note of the aforesaid decisions and held in paragraph 26 as follows:

“26. We are in respectful agreement with the aforesaid view. Be

it stated, that availing of money from a nationalised bank in the

manner, as alleged by the investigating agency, vividly exposits

fiscal impurity and, in a way, financial fraud. The modus

operandi as narrated in the chargesheet cannot be put in the

compartment of an individual or personal wrong. It is a social

wrong and it has immense societal impact. It is an accepted

principle of handling of finance that whenever there is

manipulation and cleverly conceived contrivance to avail of

these kinds of benefits it cannot be regarded as a case having

overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil character. The

ultimate victim is the collective. It creates a hazard in the

financial interest of the society. The gravity of the offence

creates a dent in the economic spine of the nation. The

cleverness which has been skillfully contrived, if the allegations

are true, has a serious consequence. A crime of this nature, in

our view, would definitely fall in the category of offences which

travel far ahead of personal or private wrong. It has the

potentiality to usher in economic crisis. Its implications have its

own seriousness, for it creates a concavity in the solemnity that

is expected in financial transactions. It is not such a case where

one can pay the amount and obtain a “no dues certificate” and

enjoy the benefit of quashing of the criminal proceeding on the

hypostasis that nothing more remains to be done. The collective

interest of which the Court is the guardian cannot be a silent or

a mute spectator to allow the proceedings to be withdrawn, or

for that matter yield to the ingenuous dexterity of the accused

persons to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution or under Section 482 of the Code and quash the

proceeding. It is not legally permissible. The Court is expected

to be on guard to these kinds of adroit moves. The High Court,

we humbly remind, should have dealt with the matter keeping

in mind that in these kinds of litigations the accused when

perceives a tiny gleam of success, readily invokes the inherent

jurisdiction for quashing of the criminal proceeding. The Court's

principal duty, at that juncture, should be to scan the entire

facts to find out the thrust of allegations and the crux of the

settlement. It is the experience of the Judge that comes to his

aid and the said experience should be used with care, caution,

circumspection and courageous prudence. As we find in the

case at hand the learned Single Judge has not taken pains to

scrutinise the entire conspectus of facts in proper perspective

and quashed the criminal proceeding. The said quashment

neither helps to secure the ends of justice nor does it prevent

the abuse of the process of the court nor can it be also said that

as there is a settlement no evidence will come on record and

there will be remote chance of conviction. Such a finding in our

view would be difficult to record. Be that as it may, the fact

remains that the social interest would be on peril and the

prosecuting agency, in these circumstances, cannot be treated

as an alien to the whole case. Ergo, we have no other option but

to hold that the order [Vikram Anantrai Doshi v. State of

Maharashtra, Criminal Application No. 2239 of 2009, order

dated 2242010 (Bom)] of the High Court is wholly

indefensible.

41. In Parbatbhai Aahir (supra), referred to by the High Court in

the impugned order, a 3 member Bench of this Court again

summarised the broad principles on this question in paragraph 16.

Paragraph 16.6 and 16.8 to 16.10 of the decision read as follows:

“16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while

dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High

Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the

offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental

depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot

appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the

victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly

speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon

society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is

founded on the overriding element of public interest in

punishing persons for serious offences.

16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from

commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar

transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate

situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the

dispute.

16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal

proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants,

the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of

a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice;

and

16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in

propositions 16.8. and 16.9. above. Economic offences involving

the financial and economic wellbeing of the State have

implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute

between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in

declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity

akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The

consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or

economic system will weigh in the balance.”

42. Thus it is clear from the march of law that the Court has to go

slow even while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.PC or

Article 226 of the Constitution in the matter of quashing of criminal

proceedings on the basis of a settlement reached between the

parties, when the offences are capable of having an impact not

merely on the complainant and the accused but also on others.

43. As seen from the final report filed in this case and the counter

affidavit filed by the I.O., persons who have adopted corrupt

practices to secure employment in the Transport Corporation fall

under two categories namely, (i) those who paid money and got

orders of appointment; and (ii) those who paid money but failed to

secure employment. If persons belonging to the 2nd category are

allowed to settle their dispute by taking refund of money, the same

would affix a seal of approval on the appointment of persons

belonging to the 1st category. Therefore, the High Court ought not to

have quashed the criminal proceedings on the basis of the

compromise.

44. It is needless to point out that corruption by a public servant

is an offence against the State and the society at large. The Court

cannot deal with cases involving abuse of official position and

adoption of corrupt practices, like suits for specific performance,

where the refund of the money paid may also satisfy the agreement

holder. Therefore we hold that the High Court was completely in

error in quashing the criminal complaint.

45. Coming to the next issue regarding the noninclusion in the

final report, of the offences under the P.C. Act, the less said the

better. In the counter affidavit filed by the I.O. to the writ petition

W.P.No.9061 of 2021, filed by the nonselected candidates, the

modus operandi adopted by the accused has been given in detail.

We have provided a gist of the contents of such counter affidavit

elsewhere in this judgment. We are constrained to say that even a

novice in criminal law would not have left the offences under the

P.C. Act, out of the final report. The attempt of the I.O. appears to

be of one, “willing to strike but afraid to wound” (the opposite of

what Alexander Pope wrote in “Epistle to Dr.Arbuthnot”)15

46. An argument was sought to be advanced as though the

Minister was not involved and that Shri Shanmugam who is

allegedly involved, was not the P.A. to the Minister. But this

argument flies in the face of the contents of paragraph 11 of the

15 Damn with faint praise, assent with civil leer, And without sneering, teach the rest to sneer, Willing

to wound and yet afraid to strike, just hint a fault, and hesitate dislike.

counter affidavit filed by the I.O. in W.P. No.9061 of 2021 which

reads as follows:

“11. It is respectfully submitted that, after the Notification

process Tr.V.Senthil Balaji, then Minister for Transport

instructed Tr.Sarangan, Special Officer, Tr.K.T.Govindarajan,

Senior Deputy Manager, Administration, Tr. V.Venkadarajan,

who were serving in the Chairman office, to collect the details

regarding the daytoday progress of the recruitment such as,

sale of application, receipt of filled application, interviews

conducted, etc… Accordingly, they have collected the details

from all the eight Transport Corporations through their email

address ‘chotpt@gmail.com’ and on the same day, they

transmitted it to the Minister’s office email id

‘ministertransport@yahoo.com’. The email communications

made between Chairman office and Transport Corporations on

03.11.2014, 04.11.2014 and 05.12.2014 from the office of the

Chairman, Transport Corporations, Chennai. Many a time, the

data had also been sent to Tr.M. Vetrichelvan, Public Relations

Officer (PRO) of MTC to his email address ‘vetri67@gmailcom’,

as he was very close to the then Transport Minister Tr.V.

Senthil Balaji. It is pertinent to mention here that the email

named ‘ministertransport@yahoo.com’ had been maintained

only by Tr.B.Shanmugam and not by any of the Personal

Assistants of the Minister Tr.V.Senthil Balaji.”

Therefore, the argument that there is nothing on record to show

that Shri Shanmugam was appointed as P.A. to the Minister, is to

be stated only to be rejected.

47. Yet another contention raised on behalf of the respondents is

that there are two other cases where allegations of corruption are

made and that CC No.25 of 2021 with which we are concerned now,

did not involve allegations of corruption. But the said contention is

abhorring, for the simple reason that all criminal complaints arose

out of the very same cashforjob scam. We are informed that the

proceedings in respect of those two cases have also been stayed by

the High Court. We do not know how the High Court could have

stayed prosecution of persons under the P.C. Act, especially in

matters of this nature.

48. As a matter of fact, the State ought to have undertaken a

comprehensive investigation into the entire scam, without allowing

the accused to fish out one case as if it was a private money

dispute.

49. The reliance placed by the respondents on an order passed by

the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on an earlier occasion

in Criminal O.P.(MD)Nos.14067, 140967, 16023 of 2016, will not

have bearing upon the present complaints. In fact, the SLP filed by

a 3rd party against the order passed in those petitions was

dismissed by this Court on 05.01.2017 even at the stage of

permission to file SLP. Therefore the respondents cannot rely upon

the same as if it constitutes a precedent.

Conclusion

50. In the light of what is stated above, the impugned order of the

High Court is wholly unsustainable. Therefore the appeals are

allowed and the impugned order of the High Court is set aside. The

criminal complaint is restored to file. The I.O. shall now proceed

under Section 173(8) of the Code to file a further report, based on

the observations made in the preceding paragraphs.

Additionally/alternatively, the Special Court before which the CC is

pending, shall exercise power under Section 216 of the Cr.P.C., if

there is any reluctance on the part of the State/I.O. If two other

cases where offences under the P.C. Act are included, are under the

orders of stay passed by the High Court, the State should take

appropriate steps to have the stay vacated. The Court dealing with

those two cases should also keep in mind the disastrous effect of

putting on hold the prosecution under the P.C. Act.

51. At present we are not passing any orders on the prayer made

by the intervenors either to constitute a Special Investigation Team

or to appoint Special Public Prosecutor, since we do hope that

based on the observations made above, the State itself may do the

needful. We also make it clear that at the time of trial, the Special

Court may not be swayed by the observations contained herein, but

proceed on the merits of the case and the law on the points.

The appeals are allowed. I.As stand closed.

……………………………J.

(S.Abdul Nazeer)

…………………………...J.

(V. Ramasubramanian)

New Delhi

September 8, 2022

Search This Blog

Indian Constitution

P. DHARAMARAJ VERSUS SHANMUGAM & ORS

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

100 Questions on Indian Constitution for UPSC 2020 Pre Exam

भारतीय संविधान से संबंधित 100 महत्वपूर्ण प्रश्न उतर

संविधान की प्रमुख विशेषताओं का उल्लेख | Characteristics of the Constitution of India