Full Judgment Text
1
NONREPORTABLE
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA | ||
|---|---|---|
| CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION |
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6396 OF 2012
| MANOHAR M. GALANI | …APPELLANT(S) |
|---|
Versus
| STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. | …RESPONDENT(S) |
|---|
J U D G M E N T
Deepak Gupta, J.
| 1. | Briefly stated the facts necessary for disposal of this appeal |
|---|
are that the appellant’s sister had started a firm in the name of
M/s. Jubilee Capital Market Services at Ulhasnagar for sale and
purchase of shares and other related financial services. The
appellant who was otherwise employed with the Punjab National
| Bank was helping his sister in the firm. One Mr. Kishore K.<br>ture Not Verified<br>lly signed by<br>PAK GUGLANI<br>201K9.05.e08swani started investing in shares and stocks through the<br>:54 IST<br>on: | Bank was helping his sister in the firm. One Mr. Kishore K. |
|---|---|
| GUGLANI<br>K9.05.e08swani started investing in shares and stocks through the<br>IST | |
| IS |
aforesaid firm in March, 1992. During 1993, the share market
2
crashed resulting in very heavy losses to all investors. Mr.
Keswani, however, blamed the appellant for the loss of
approximately rupees 13 lakhs allegedly suffered by him.
Thereafter, the said Mr. Keswani instituted as many as 10 cases
against the appellant and his family members directly or with the
help of others out of which one was a civil suit and the remaining
9 were criminal cases. In six of the criminal cases arrest
warrants were issued against the appellant and his family
members and they were illegally arrested.
| 2. | The case of the appellant is that there was an illegal racket |
|---|
in the State of Gujarat whereby some unscrupulous lawyers in
connivance with court officials were procuring arrest warrants
against the alleged accused without following the procedure
prescribed by law and without verifying whether there was any
truth in the complaint. The appellant informed one Mr. Mahatre,
a journalist about the manner in which he was arrested. Shri
Mahatre decided to carry out a sting operation. He filed a
complaint and managed to obtain arrest warrants against a
sitting Judge of the Bombay High Court, the Home Minister of
Maharashtra, 3 M.L.As., a spokesman of a national party and a
3
journalist. After obtaining these warrants Shri Mahatre lodged
the same with the police to expose the scandal by which arrest
warrants were being issued. According to the appellant, the sting
operation was carried out at his instance. This matter was
splashed across the newspapers and the police started
investigating the matter. In fact, the Sessions Court, Nadiad took
| suo motu | notice and quashed the order of the Judicial Magistrate |
|---|
First Class (JMFC) Dakor and recalled the warrants. The case
was transferred from the JMFC, Dakor to JMFC, Nadiad.
| 3. | A public interest litigation was filed in the High Court by |
|---|
Shri Ajit D. Padiwal, an advocate. Shri Padiwal died during the
pendency of the petition but keeping in view the serious nature of
the issues involved the High Court continued with the appeal and
| appointed an | amicus curiae | to assist it. The appellant also |
|---|
intervened in the matter. The criminal proceedings were also
initiated against four persons before the Dakor Court. The High
| Court by an elaborate judgment dated 15 | th | /20 | th | /21 | st | and 22 | nd |
|---|
September, 2004 disposed of the writ petition giving various
directions. None has challenged those directions. The challenge
is limited to the directions issued by the High Court that all the
4
courts where the 10 proceedings against the appellant and his
family members are pending should disposed of the proceedings
at the earliest.
| 4. | The contention of the appellant is that, in fact, during the |
|---|
course of proceedings before the High Court various reports were
submitted to the High Court by the police officials which clearly
indicate that the cases filed against the appellant were totally
false. In many of the cases the complainant(s) was not even in
existence and remained absent and in some cases the
complainant denied having filed any case. Therefore, the
appellant prayed that the proceedings in all the 10 cases be
quashed.
| 5. | We may also note that the appellant had also filed Writ |
|---|
Petition (Criminal) No. 150 of 2006 in this Court praying for the
similar reliefs in which this Court had passed the following order:
| “ | In view of the fact that in SLP(C) No.10008/2005 leave | |
|---|---|---|
| has been granted, we are not inclined to entertain this | ||
| writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of | ||
| India by the same party. The writ petition is dismissed | ||
| accordingly. We may, however, clarify that at the time | ||
| of final disposal of the civil appeal, it will be open to | ||
| the writ petitioners to urge any additional ground, | ||
| which is raised in this writ petition subject to the leave | ||
| of the Court.” |
5
| 6. | Mr. Gopal Sankarnarayanan, learned senior counsel has |
|---|
drawn our attention to a number of documents. He candidly
admitted that in the public interest litigation there was no prayer
for quashing of the proceedings and only an intervention
application had been filed.
| 7. | The High Court was justified in holding that in the absence |
|---|
of any application in this behalf, the relief could not be granted.
However, we may note that the High Court itself found that out of
10 cases, 3 cases already stand disposed of. The proceedings
had been closed by the magistrate and these need not be re
opened again. The cases were, however, remanded to the courts
of the magistrate only with a view to take further action in view of
the various directions given by the High Court including initiating
proceedings under Section 195 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
| 8. | After the special leave petition was filed these proceedings |
|---|
have remained stayed and as a result seven cases filed in 1994
are still pending. Out of the 7 cases, one is summary suit being
| Suit No. 67 of 1994, pending before 3 | rd | Joint Civil Judge, |
|---|
6
Vadodara, Gujarat and one is a complaint case being CC No. 704
of 1994 pending before JMFC Dabhoi, Distt. Vadodara, Gujarat
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The
other 5 cases being (i) Criminal Case No.1099 of 1993, pending
before JMFC, Dakor, Distt. Kheda, Gujarat, (ii) M. Case No. 11 of
1994, pending before JMFC, Dabhoi, Distt. Vadodara, Gujarat,
(iii) Enquiry Case No. 6 of 1994, pending before JMFC, Bajwa,
Court No. 4, Gujarat, (iv) Enquiry Case No. 3 of 1994, pending
before JMFC, Municipal Court, Makarpura, Baroda and (v) CC
| No. 288 of 1994 pending before JMFC, 18 | th | Court of Metropolitan |
|---|
Magistrate, Mirzapur, Ahmedabad. Learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that though it is true that he had not prayed
| for quashing of proceedings before the High Court, | the appellant |
|---|
may be granted liberty to file proceedings for quashing of these
cases in view of the various reports given by the investigating
officers before the High Court in public interest litigation being
Special Civil Application No. 13258 of 1994.
| 9. | We find merit in the submission of learned counsel for the |
|---|
appellant. Though the appellant may not have made specific
prayer for quashing of the proceedings, we cannot lose sight of
7
the fact that he was the whistle blower and an aggrieved person.
He has the right to challenge such criminal proceedings which,
according to him, have been initiated in total violation of law.
According to the appellant, the sting operation and various police
reports filed before the High Court reveal a pattern of obtaining
illegal arrest warrants.
| 10. | We are of the view that the appellant should not be denied |
|---|
his right to question the initiation of criminal proceedings.
Therefore, while dismissing the appeal we direct that the
proceedings in the five cases mentioned above shall remain
stayed for a further period of six weeks. In the meantime, the
appellant is granted liberty to file appropriate proceedings before
the High Court for quashing the criminal proceedings in the five
cases mentioned above. With regard to CC No. 704 of 1994 and
Summary Suit No.67 of 1994, we direct the concerned courts to
first issue notices to the complainant/plaintiff. Only if the
complainant and the plaintiff appear before the concerned courts
and are interested in pursuing the complaint/suit, will notice be
issued to the appellant and/or his family members. In case the
plaintiff/complainant appears and notices are issued, the trial
8
court shall make an effort to dispose all the two cases at the
earliest and in any case not later than six months from the date
when the appellant herein puts in appearance.
| 11. | The appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. |
|---|
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
....................................J.
(DEEPAK GUPTA)
....................................J.
(SANJIV KHANNA)
New Delhi
May 08, 2019