Union of India &
Ors. Vs. Ramesh Gandhi
J U D G E M E N T
appeal arises out of a judgment of the High Court of Calcutta dated 23rd November,
2001 in Writ Petition No. 352/2001. The appellants herein were the respondents
in the above-mentioned Writ Petition.
FIR came to be registered on 15th November, 2000 in the Delhi Special Police
Establishment, Ranchi Branch in Crime No. RC 13(A)/2000 (R) under Section 120B
read with Section 420 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988 against nine accused of whom the first accused was the
Coal Controller at the relevant point of time. The next five accused were the officers
of Central Coalfields Limited (hereinafter `CCL'. for short), which is a subsidiary
of Coal India Limited (hereinafter `CIL', for short). Accused No.9 is a Private
Limited Company (hereinafter `private company', for short) and accused Nos. 7
and 8 are the members of the said private company.
sole respondent, Mr. Ramesh Gandhi, is one of the members of the
above-mentioned private company and shown to be the seventh accused in the above-mentioned
FIR. He filed writ petition No. 352/2001 on the file of the Calcutta High Court
praying that the above-mentioned FIR be quashed. By the judgment under appeal,
the Calcutta High Court allowed the writ petition quashing the FIR.
substance of the accusation in the FIR is that all the accused entered into a
criminal conspiracy to confer an illegal and unjust benefit on the above-mentioned
private company. In the process, the accused, "intentionally and dishonestly"
suppressed certain relevant and crucial facts (in the various cases filed
before the Calcutta High Court and also this Court to which the accused were parties),
which resulted in orders being passed both by this Court as well as by the High
Court favourable to the private company.
reads as follows:
SPECIAL POLICE ESTABLISHMENT, RANCHI BRANCH
Crime No.RC 13(A)/2000(R),
Date and time of Report : 15.11.2000 at 1700 Hrs.
Place of occurrence with
Calcutta (West Bengal),
Date and time of
occurrence : 1990-91 to 2000
Name of complainant
or informant with address : Through Source
Offence : U/s. 120B r/w
420 IPC and Sec. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988.
Name and address of
the accused :
(1) Shri P.N. Tiwary,
the then Coal Controller, Calcutta (retd.)
(2) Shri R.P.
Srivastava, the then G.M. Sales, CCL, Ranchi (retd.)
(3) Shri S.K.
Srivastava, G.M. (Sales), CCL, Ranchi
(4) Shri B. Akla,
CMD, CCL, Ranchi
(5) Shri K.M. Singh,
the then G.M., Argada Area, CCL
(6) Shri Sudarshan Singh,
the then Area Sales Officer Argada Area, CCL, presently Superintending Engineer
(E&M), N.K. Area, CCL
(7) Shri Ramesh Gandhi,
Prop. M/s. Continental Transport Constn. Corpn., (CTCC), Dhanbad (Pvt).
(8) Shri Mahesh
Gandhi of M/s. CTCC, Dhanbad (Pvt.)
(9) M/s. Continental Transport
Construction Corpn. (CTCC), Dhanbad (Pvt.)
Action taken : Regular
case registered and investigation taken up. Investigation Officer: Shri A.
Prasad, DSP, CBI, SPE, Ranchi
A reliable information
has been received to the effect that Shri P.N. Tiwary, the then Coal Controller
(since retd.), Calcutta, Shri R.P. Srivastava, the then G.M.(Sales), CCL,
Ranchi (since retd.), Shri S.K. Srivastava, the then GM.(Sales), CCL, Ranchi, Shri
B. Akla, the then Chief of Marketing, Coal India Limited, Calcutta, Director (Technical)
and (Projects and Planning), CCL and presently Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Central
Coalfields Ltd. (CCL), Ranchi, Shri K.M. Singh, the then G.M., Argada Area,
CCL, Shri Sudarshan Singh, the then Area Sales Officer, Argada Area, CCL
(presently Superintending Engineer (E&M), N.K. Area, CCL,
Shri Ramesh Gandhi of
M/s. Continental Transport Construction Corpn., Dhanbad and Shri Mahesh Gandhi of
M/s. Continental Transport Construction Corpn., Dhanbad entered into a criminal
conspiracy among themselves and in furtherance of the said conspiracy the
accused public servants abused their respective official positions, in as much
as that they helped the private firm namely
M/s. CTCC by way of illegally
and unauthorisedly transferring different grades of coal/slurry to the private firm
(CTCC) and also by way of intentionally and dishonestly suppressing relevant facts
before the Hon'ble Courts and thereby helped M/s.CTCC in getting favourable
orders for release of steam coal which was meant to be supplied only to the
actual users and not to the traders like M/s. CTCC.
As a result of the aforesaid
overt acts of the accused public servants as mentioned above, M/s. CTCC,
illegally obtained the supply of the Steam Coal at a cheaper rate applicable to
the actual users, even after the lapse of the period stipulated by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, causing wrongful loss to the tune of Rs.90,00,000/-
approximately to the CCL. It has been alleged that Coal India Limited (CIL),
Calcutta vide NIT (Notice Inviting Tender) dated 9/15-1-91 offered sale of
existing stock of following categories of coal under "BULK SALE
SCHEME" on as is where is basis.
(ii) Dirty Slurry
It was also stipulated
vide item no.23 of the terms and conditions of the NIT that in case of failure
on the part of the buyer to lift 90% of the quantity within 90 days of allocation,
security deposit and the Bank Guarantee would be liable to be forfeited by the
In response to the
aforesaid NIT, M/s. CTCC, offered to buy following quantity/quality of coal at
the prescribed rate. M/s. CTCC was allotted the entire quantity w.e.f. 25.7.91
which was to be lifted within 90 days after depositing the cost in advance.
offered by M/s. CTCC
Slurry Grade `F'
178.00 per MT
It is further alleged
that M/s. CTCC deposited the cost only for 1500 MTs of Middlings Grade `F' and 13276
MT of Slurry Grade `D' against the offered quantity as mentioned in the
foregoing para. M/s. CTCC had lifted this quantity of 1500 MT only and was thus
to be penalised by way of forfeiture of security/invoking of Bank Guarantee as per
terms and conditions of the NIT. However, the concerned accused public servants
in pursuance to a criminal conspiracy, had shown favours to M/s. CTCC by not
taking action subsequently as above.
In furtherance of the
conspiracy, M/s. CTCC requested the CIL in April 1993 to transfer the remaining
quantity of 88500 MT of Middlings Grade `F' to Dirty Slurry Grade `F' and the
same was approved on 28.5.93 in complete violation of terms and conditions of
the NIT. Accused Ramesh Gandhi of M/s. CTCC in accordance with Shri P.N.
Tiwary, the then Coal Controller, Calcutta and the accused officials of the CCL/CIL
submitted a representation to accused Shri P.N. Tiwary requesting transfer of the
left over quantity of 165724 MT of Slurry Grade `D' to Dirty Slurry Grade `F'. Shri
P.N. Tiwari, in his capacity as Coal Controller, was supposed to allow the
transfer of grade of coal after following due procedure, but he, in utter
violation of the terms and condition of the NIT, approved the same and intimated
to the CMD, CCL, Ranchi, accordingly.
It is further alleged
that the Coal India Limited, Calcutta floated another NIT under
"LIBERALISED SALES SCHEME II (LSS-II)", with same terms and conditions
as of Bulk Sale Scheme, and M/s. CTCC offered to purchase, under this scheme, following
quantities of coal from the collieries mentioned against each.
Coal Grade `B'
Coal Washery Grade `D'
It is further alleged
that M/s. CTCC was allotted 32,000 MT of Steam Coal Grade `B' from URIMARI
Colliery and 5750 MT of Washery Grade `D' Coal from Jarangdih Colliery vide
letter dated 7.4.93 and 21.4.93 respectively of Coal India Limited, Calcutta. As
against the aforesaid allotted quantity M/s.CTCC deposited the amount equal
only to the value of 3000 MT each and lifted the same from the respective
In pursuance of
criminal conspiracy M/s. CTCC further requested the then General Manager, Argada
Area, CCL, Shri K.M. Singh, vide letter dated 7.4.94 to allot Steam Coal from Sirka,
Religara and Giddi `C' Collieries (All high demand collieries), in lieu of left
over quantity of Slurry Grade `D' (165724 MT), Middlings Grade `F' (88500 MT)
and Dirty Slurry Grade 'F' (45000 MT) of the previous scheme, i.e. Bulk Sale
Steam Coal of the
aforesaid three sources namely Sirka, Religara and Giddi `C' was to be
allotted, as per the policy of the CIL/CCL, exclusively to the industrial consumers
(Actual users) and not to the traders like M/s. CTCC at all, during the relevant
period. Also, the rate of Steam Coal applicable to the industrial Consumers
(Actual users) was approximately Rs.200/- per MT less than the rate fixed for
the traders and M/s. CTCC being the traders, was not authorised to get the Steam
Coal at the rate which was applicable to the industrial consumers (actual
Following the receipt
of letter dated 7.4.94 of M/s. CTCC, accused Shri K.M. Singh, the then General Manager,
Argada Area, CCL, in pursuance to the criminal conspiracy falsely intimated the
Sales and Marketing Divisions of CCL, Ranchi, on 8.4.94 to the effect that
Argada Area was having a huge stock of Steam Coal and that he was ready to supply
the same to M/s. CTCC.
It is further alleged
that accused Shri K.M. Singh, the then General Manager, Argada Area, CCL also
was not competent to entertain such a matter as it was the concern of General
Manager (Sales and Marketing), CCL, Ranchi. Simultaneously, accused Ramesh
Gandhi of M/s. CTCC approached accused P.N. Tiwary, the then Coal Controller,
as well, on the same issue, who in turn, in criminal conspiracy with M/s. CTCC
and accused public servants wrote a letter dated 12.4.94 to the CMD, CCL, Ranchi,
inter alia, directing him to accede to the request of M/s. CTCC, without
ascertaining from the CCL, Ranchi, the stock position and the past conduct of M/s.
CTCC of not remitting the cost of entire offered quantity of coal in question
against both the aforesaid schemes namely `Bulk Sale' and `LSS-II' within the
stipulated period as prescribed and also the fact that M/s. CTCC was not
authorised to get the Steam Coal which was meant for Industrial Units (Actual
Even before the
aforesaid letter dated 12.4.94 of accused P.N. Tiwary, was received in the
office of the CMD, CCL, Ranchi, accused Ramesh Gandhi of M/s. CTCC moved to the
Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta by suppressing the relevant facts of the matter and
secured an order dated 18.4.94 vide which CMD, CCL, Ranchi was directed to
comply with the directions of the Coal Controller issued vide letter dated
12.4.94. The accused public servants of CIL/CCL also did not place the correct
facts before the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta in the matter.
It is further alleged
that it was obligatory on the part of accused R.P. Shrivastava, the then General
Manager (Sales), CCL, Ranchi, and Shri Akla, the then Chief of Marketing, CIL,
Calcutta to safeguard the interest of the company by way of approaching the
Coal Controller to modify his order issued vide letter dated 12.4.94 according to
the terms and conditions of the NITs in question and also to recommend to move the
Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court Calcutta for modification of the order dated
18.4.94 on following points.
CTCC did not fulfill the terms and conditions of NITs in question and thus the
penalty was to be imposed on them;
Coal of the aforesaid collieries was not meant for traders like M/s. CTCC.
if allotted Steam Coal, were to pay @ Rs.200/- approximately (per MT) more than
the rate allowed to the Industrial Consumers (Actual users).
However, they, in
pursuance to the criminal conspiracy, simply recommended challenging the authority
of the Coal Controller for issuing direction vide letter dated 12.4.94, in the
Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta since the Coal Controller was authorised to issue such
letters, the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta vide order dated 6.4.95 dismissed the
Revision Petition filed by the CIL with direction to implement the order dated
12.4.94 of the Coal Controller.
M/s. CTCC, however, did
not deposit the value of the Coal to be lifted again, on some pretext or the
other as they were not in a position to sale such a huge quantity of coal at monopolistic
price, those days, since the buyers were getting coal directly from the Coal
India Limited and other sources. Also neither the accused Shri B. Akla, the then
Chief of Marketing CIL nor Shri R.P. Shrivastava, the then General Manager
(Sales and Marketing), CCL, Ranchi asked M/s. CTCC to deposit the coal value and
to lift the coal. Two SLPs vide no. 2004 and 2005 of 1997 were, however, filed
in the Hon'ble Supreme Court after a lapse of more than two years by the
CIL./CCL challenging the order dated 6.4.95 of the Division Bench of the
Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta.
At this stage also,
the actual facts relating to the failure on the part of M/s. CTCC in lifting
the coal after depositing the coal value in advance within the stipulated period
as per terms and conditions of the NITs, were not brought to the notice of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and simply the authority of the Coal Controller was
challenged. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after hearing both the accused parties, dismissed
both the SLPs on 18.3.97 with an observation that the Coal Controller had got
the jurisdiction to pass such orders. On receipt of the orders of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, it was rightly commented upon by an officer of Sales and
Marketing Department of the CCL, Ranchi on 5.4.97 to the effect that merely
challenging authority of the Coal Controller had not served any purpose.
He opined that all
the relevant points regarding failure on the part of M/s. CTCC should be raised
by preferring an appeal against the impugned order. Accused Shri B. Akla by
that time had joined as Director (Projects and Planning) CCL, Ranchi and had
perused the aforesaid noting on 5.4.97 itself, but he had returned the file on
16.4.97 without any comment with an advice to discuss the matter with the Panel
Advocate of CCL/CIL. On 22.4.98, a modification petition was filed in the
Hon'ble Supreme Court on behalf of CCL/CIL, mentioning therein the difficulties
in implementing the orders dated 12.4.94 fo the Coal Controller, Calcutta.
In this petition also,
there was no mention about the facts that M/s. CTCC had not deposited the value
of the entire quantity of coal and had not lifted the same within the
stipulated period. The fact that Steam Coal of the collieries in question was
meant specially for the industrial units/Actual users and if sold to the traders
was to be costlier by Rs.200/- per MT approximately was also not mentioned in the
said modification petition. 9 M/s. CTCC also filed a contempt petition
simultaneously in the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the then CMD, CCL, Ranchi
and others in the matter. Hearing of both the petitions was fixed on 9.5.97 and
the Hon'ble Supreme Court issued a show cause notice to the concerned officers
Hearing on the
modification petition as mentioned above could not be taken up. As per the
commitment of the CCL, the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 14.7.97,
directed the CCL to complete the supply of the entire quantity of coal allotted
to M/s. CTCC within 20 months positively at the rate of 10,000 MT per month and
at the modified price fixed by the CIL w.e.f. 1.4.97. On receipt of the
aforesaid order, the Dealing Officer of the Sales and Marketing Division of CCL,
Ranchi, initiated a proposal suggesting that penalty as per terms and conditions
of NIT of "Bulk Sale" and "LSS-II" Schemes should be decided
in case M/s. CTCC to notify truck wise allotment on a weekly basis, to ensure timely
placement of trucks by the party and to maintain a record to assess the
quantity lifted by them within a particular period of time.
It was also
decided/recommended during a meeting held jointly by the Director (Finance), CCL,
Ranchi, C.G.M., Argada Area, CCL, Sales Officer, Argada Area, CCL, CGM (Sales and
Marketing Division), CCL, Ranchi etc. to impose a penalty on M/s. CTCC in case
failed to lift 10,000 MT of coal per month as per the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme
When this note, duly
recommended by the Committee was put up to the accused Shri B. Akla, the then director
(Technical) and (Projects and Planning), CCL, Ranchi, he observed in favour of
the party to the effect that the party shall have to be made to forego the
unlifted quantity after "the stipulated period, and it will in itself, be sufficient
and recovery/penalising for unlifted quantity may not be required".
This observation of
accused Shri B. Akla, which was not in accordance with the recommendation of
General Manager (Sales) and the Committee members, including the Director
(Finance) shows that he was promoting the interests of M/s. CTCC rather than
that of CCL, Ranchi. Thereafter, on 20.9.97, a meeting was held which was
attended to by Shri B. Akla, Director (Technical) and (P&P), Shri A.K. Mitra,
R.R. Menon, G.M.(Sales
and Marketing), CCL and Ramesh Gandhi of M/s. CTCC and it was mutually agreed upon
that M/s. CTCC would submit a Bank Guarantee at the rate of Rs.30/- per MT for
the unlifted quantity of coal, which could not be lifted due to the failure on
the part of M/s. CTCC and to allow twenty months time for lifting the entire
quantity 10as per the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. This period was
to be calculated from the actual date of commencement of lifting or 1st November,
1997, whichever was earlier.
It was also specified
that M/s. CTCC would pay @ Rs.896/- per MT for the Steam Coal Grade `B' at the
notified rate w.e.f. 1.4.97. As per the aforesaid decision M/s. CTCC was to
lift the entire quantity of coal by June 1999, but against 2.8 lakh MT of Steam
Coal, M/s. CTCC lifted only about 30000 MT of coal from the aforesaid three
collieries upto June 1999 and thus the remaininig quantity of 2.5 lakhs MT of
coal was not to be allowed to be lifted by M/s. CTCC.
However, in violation
of the Supreme Court's order M/s. CTCC was allowed by Shri R.P. Shrivastava,
the then General Manager (Sales), CCL, Ranchi to lift another 15000 MT of Steam
Coal between June 1999 to October 1999. As per the direction of Hon'ble Supreme
Court, the lifting of Coal was to commence from November 1997 but it was delayed
by M/s. CTCC in connivance with the officers of CCL, on one pretext or the other
upto March 1998, till the peak season started.
This was obviously
with a view to avoid the lean season. It is also alleged that Shri Sudarshan
Singh the then Area Sales Officer, Argada Area, CCL, was made the nodal officer
responsible for regulating supplies of coal to M/s. CTCC and its reconciliation
but he intentionally did not make any reconciliation and did not adhere to the norms
of NIT/direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Cort. Shri Sudarshan Singh also went to
the extent of issuing a letter/certificate favouring the party mentioning
therein that due to the non-availability of Coal in the Area, the supplies
could not be made to M/s. CTCC. This was done with a view to helping the party in
the matter of lifting coal even after the expiry of the stipulated period of 20
After the expiry of 20
months, accused Shri S.K. Shrivastava the then General Manager (Sales), CCL,
Ranchi and Shri Mahesh Gandhi of M/s. CTCC entered into an unwarranted
agreement (MOU) on 23.3.2000, vide which M./s. CTCC would be allowed to lift
coal according to its own will as no time frame was fixed for lifting the same.
M/s. CTCC was also given a chance for lifting coal from Bokaro, Barkakana, Sayal
and Dhuri Area, in addition to the aforesaid areas was in high demand and was
fetching the highest premium. In the MOU, no provision was kept for imposing
any penalty for failure on the part of M/s. CTCC in lifting of Coal. This was
done with a view of allow M/s. CTCC to lift coal during premium months.
The rate at which
M/s. CTCC allowed to lift the coal was applicable to the industrial consumers/actual
users and not to the traders like M/s. CTCC. The rate applicable to the trader was
Rs.200/- (approximately per MT) more. 11 After the expiry of stipulated period
of 20 months, M/s. CTCC was allowed by the accused public servants of CCL to lift
extra quantity of 45000 MT of steam coal, at the rate applicable to the actual
users and thereby CCL Ranchi was put to a wrongful loss to the tune of Rs.90
lakhs (Rs. Ninty Lakhs) approximately.
The aforesaid acts of
commissions and omissions on the part of S/Shri P.N. Tiwary, the then Coal Controller,
Calcutta (retired), R.P. Shrivastava, the then General Manager (Sales), CCL, Ranchi
(retd.), S.K. Srivastava, G.M. (Sales) CCL, Ranchi, B. Akla, CMD, CCL, Ranchi,
K.M. Singh, the then G.M. Argada Area, CCL, Sudarshan Singh, the then Area Sales
Officer, Argada Area, presently superintending engineer (E&M), NK Area,
CCL, Ramesh Gandhi of M/s. Continental Transport Construction Corporation
(CTCC) Dhanbad (Pvt.) reveal that the public servants and the private persons along
with their firm,
as mentioned above, entered
into a criminal conspiracy and in pursuance of the same violated the terms and conditions
of the NITs issued in respect of sale of coal under "Bulk Sale" and "LSS-II"
Schemes, wilfully suppressed relevant facts before the Hon'ble High Court,
Calcutta and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and subsequently in violation of Hon'ble
Supreme Court's order allowed the private party namely M/s. CTCC to lift an additional
quantity of 45000 MT of coal at the rate applicable to the industrial consumers/actual
users and thereby caused huge wrongful loss to the tune of Rs.90 lakhs
approximately to the CCL, Ranchi and corresponding wrongful gain to the private
party and themselves.
Shri P.N. Tiwary, the
then Coal Controller, Calcutta also connived with the private party and accused
public servants by fraudulently and dishonestly issuing directions to the CMD,
CCL, Ranchi in favour of the private party. This prima facie disclose the
commission of offences u/s. 120(B) r/w 420 IPC and Sec. 13(2) r/w sec. 13(1)(d)
of P.C. Act, 1988. This R.C. is therefore registered and investigation is taken
up. Sd/- 15.11.2000 [A. PRASAD] Dy. Supt. Of Police, CBI/SPE/Ranchi, Investigating
Officer Dated 15.11.2000"
to the FIR, the various acts and omissions narrated therein of the accused caused
a huge wrongful loss of approximately rupees ninety lakhs to the CCL and a
corresponding wrongful gain to the private company.
case has a long and chequered history. It all started with two advertisements
issued by CIL in January, 1991 and September, 1991 published in the `Statesman'
newspaper inviting offers for purchase of various grades of coal under two
schemes propounded by it named as `Bulk Sale Scheme' and `Liberalised Sale
Scheme-II'. [It is unfortunate that copies of the above advertisements are not
placed on record]
transpired subsequently is described in detail by this Court in judgment dated
18th March, 1997 in Civil Appeal Nos.2004-2005/1997 reported in (1997) 9 SCC
258. Both Coal India Ltd. and the private company were parties to the
above-mentioned appeals. In paras 5 to 7, this Court recorded as follows: "5.
In Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition No. 25983 of 1995 we are concerned
with the sale of coal under the Liberalised Sales Scheme-II (for short 'LSS-II)
framed by CIL in August 1992 in pursuance of Notifications dated July 24, 1967
and June 4, 1992. In September 1992 CIL published an advertisement in the 'Statesmen'
inviting offers for purchase in respect of coal offered for sale under LSS-II.
In the said advertisement
the quantity and quality of coal that was being offered in the various collieries
belonging to the subsidiaries of CIL were specified. 13Among the collieries
mentioned in the advertisement were Urimari and Jarangdih collieries of CCL. In
respect of Urimari Colliery 1.35 lac tonnes of Grade-B Steam Coal was offered
and in respect of Jarangdih Colliery 1.75 lac tonnes of Grade W-III Steam Coal was
In response to the
said advertisement M/s. Continental Transport and Construction Corporation,
respondent No. 1 in both the appeals (hereinafter referred to as 'the
petitioners'), sent a letter dated September 16, 1992 to the General Manager
(Sales), CCL, offering to purchase 1.35 lac tonnes of Grade-B Steam Coal from
Urimari Colliery and 1.75 lac tonnes of Grade W-III Steam Coal from Jarangdih
By allotment letter dated
April 7, 1993, CCL allotted to the petitioners 32,400 MT Grade-B Steam Coal
from Urimari Colliery in Sayal area in response to the offer made by the petitioners
on September 16, 1992. By another allotment letter dated April 20/21, 1993, CCL
allotted to the petitioners 50,750 MT Grade W-III Steam Coal from Jarangdih
Colliery. The validity of the said allotments was up to March 31, 1994, but the
period of the said allotments was extended. The case of the petitioners is that
Steam Coal at Urimari and Jarangdih Collieries was not matching to the declared
Grade-B and W-III respectively and was of lower grades. Sirka Colliery falling
in Argada area also belongs to CCL.
The petitioners, having
come to know that sufficient stocks of Grade-B Steam Coal was available for
disposal at Sirka Colliery, wrote a letter dated April 7, 1994 to the General
Manager (Argada area) of CCL, wherein it was mentioned that 32,400 MT of Grade-B
Steam Coal from Urimari Colliery and 50,750 MT of Grade W-III Steam Coal from Jarangdih
Colliery was allotted to them vide allotment letters dated April 7, 1993 and
April 20/21, 1993 respectively and that on account of non-availability of
Grade-B Steam Coal at Urimari Colliery and Grade W-III grade steam coal at Jarangdih
Colliery it would not be possible for them to lift the required quantity of
In the said letter it
was also stated that the petitioners had learnt that Sirka Colliery had huge stocks
of Grade-B Steam Coal to the tune of 4.16 lakh MT and that he (General Manger)
was willing to accept the diversion of orders of other areas booked under
LSS-II to the tune of 2.00 lakhs MT in addition to other pending commitments and
orders/proposed deliveries to others including the petitioners. By the said letter
the petitioners expressed their willingness to accept equivalent quantities of Grade-B
Steam Coal from Sirka Colliery in case the General Manager was willing to accept
the transfer of allotment for Steam Coal of Urimari and Jarangdih Collieries.
The General Manager was
requested to accept the proposal of the petitioners at his level and intimate
to the General Manager (Sales)/CCL Headquarters for obtaining the formal
approval in this regard. After receiving the said letter the General Manager
(A), Sirka, sent a communication dated April 8, 1994 to the General Manager
(S&M), CCL, wherein he enclosed a copy of the aforementioned letter of the petitioners
dated April 7, 1994 and, after referring to his wireless message dated April 1,
1994, he stated that in view of the stock position of 4.16 lakhs MT of coal at
Sirka Colliery it has been confirmed that in order to liquidate stocks such orders
of steam coal, if diverted from other areas, could be accepted.
On April 9, 1994 the petitioners
submitted a representation to the Coal Controller for transfer of allotments of
steam coal from Urimari and Jarangdih Collieries allotted by CCL/Headquarters under
LSS-II from these collieries to Sirka Colliery of Argada area. In the said
representation the petitioners mentioned that quality of coal being produced at
Urimari Colliery was equivalent to Grade-D coal and at Jarangdih Colliery also
the quality of coal being produced was equivalent to Grade W-IV.
It was stated that at
Sirka Colliery of Argada area there were huge stocks of Grade-B Steam Coal to
the tune of 4.10 lakhs MT and it was pointed out that the General Manager
(Argada area) of CCL, in his letter dated April 8, 1994, had recommended the
request of the petitioners for diversion of allotments to Sirka Colliery for favourable
consideration and approval of the General Manager (Sales)/CCL. A copy of the said
letter of the General Manager, Argada Area, Sirka dated April 8, 1994 was also
submitted along with the representation. By the said representation the
petitioners requested the Coal Controller to issue a direction to the coal
company for transfer of allotments of Steam Coal from Urimari and Jarangdih
Collieries to Sirka Colliery for release of equivalent quantity of Steam Coal from
On the said representation
the Coal Controller, on April 12, 1994, sent a communication to the Chairman-cum-Managing
Director, CCL, Ranchi referring to the letter dated April 7, 1994 submitted by
the petitioners to the General Manager, Argada area as well as the letter dated
April 8, 1994 from the General Manager, Argada addressed to the General Manager
(Sales)/CCL wherein he had recommended for acceptance of the transfer in order to
liquidate huge stocks of coal at Sirka Colliery. In the said letter the Coal
Controller has stated :
Having noted the
entire circumstances and facts of the case and the availability of steam coal
at Sirka you are advised to forthwith give effect to the transfer of these allotments
of steam coal from Urimari/Jarangdih collieries to Sirka Colliery for delivery of
equivalent quantity of steam coal Grade B to the party as requested for by them
and recommended by the concerned area, at the earliest.6. Civil Appeal arising out
of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 26366 of 1995 relates to sale of washery products on the
basis of the Notification dated July 24, 1967, before amendment introduced therein
by Notification dated June 4, 1992.
On January 17, 1991 and
advertisement was published in the 'Statesman' inviting offers for bulk purchase
of rejects, Middlings, Slurry and Dirty Slurry in various washeries of CCL
including the Gidi Washery. In response to the said advertisement, the petitioners,
on March 2, 1991, 15submitted offers for purchase of 1,79,000 MT Slurry, 90,000
MT Middlings and 90,000 MT Dirty Slurry. By letters dated May 11/14, 1991 CIL
accepted the offer of the petitioners and agreed to supply to the petitioners
1,79,000 MT Slurry Grade-D, 90,000 MT Middlings Grade-F and 45,000 MT Dirty Slurry
Grade-F from Gidi Washery. Subsequently by letter dated May 28, 1992 CCL
approved the transfer of 88,500 MT of Grade-F Middlings allotted to the
petitioners to equivalent quantity of Grade-F Dirty Slurry to be delivered from
By letter dated September
18, 1993, the General Manager (Argada area) of CCL refused to accede to the
request of the petitioners to allow delivery of Grade-D also with Grade-F Dirty
Slurry and reiterated that in order to avoid possible malpractices of lifting of
Slurry against orders of Dirty Slurry, lifting of both the products concurrently
was not possible. On September 20, 1993, the petitioners submitted a
representation to the Coal Controller requesting him to direct CCL to transfer their
allotment of 1,65,724 MT of Slurry Grade-D to equivalent quantity of Dirty
slurry Grade-F which was abundantly available at the Gidi Washery.
On January 31, 1994 the
Coal Controller gave a direction to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, CCL,
Ranchi, to transfer 1,65,724 MT of Grade-D Slurry to equivalent quantity of Grade-F
Slurry in Gidi Washery. Since the direction of the Coal Controller was not
implemented by CCL, the petitioners moved the Calcutta High Court by filing a Writ
Petition and the High Court, by order dated February 10, 1994, directed the appellants
to act in terms of Coal Controller's letter dated January 31, 1994. Thereupon by
letter dated February 28, 1994, CCL confirmed the transfer of 1,65,724 MT of Grade-D
Slurry to Grade-F Slurry of Gidi Washery.
The case of the
petitioners is that with effect from April 1, 1994, CCL changed the grade of
Dirty Slurry of Gidi Washery from Grade-F to Grade-E for the year 1994-95 and
increased its price by about Rs. 85 per MT. The petitioners submitted a representation
to the Coal Controller on April 2, 1994 in that regard. On April 7, 1994, the petitioners
wrote a letter to the General Manager (Argada area) of CCL, wherein they stated
that in view of the difficulties mentioned in the said letter, it would not be
possible for them to lift the Dirty Slurry allotted to them from Gidi Washery
and they sought transfer of their allotments of Dirty Slurry to Steam Coal from
By his letter dated
April 8, 1994 addressed to the General Manager (S&M), CCL, the General
Manager (Argada area), forwarded the said letter of the petitioners for favourable
consideration. On April 9, 1994 the petitioners submitted a representation to
the Coal Controller requesting him to transfer of then-allotted quantity of
Dirty Slurry remaining to be booked and lifted against allotment and the entire
quantity of recent allotment of 1,65,724 MT of Dirty Slurry for release of
equivalent quantity of Steam Coal by road from Sirka/Gidi-C/Religara
The Coal Controller,
sent a communication dated April 12, 1994 to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
CCL, wherein, after taking 16 note of the representation dated April 7, 1994 submitted
by the petitioners to the General Manager (Argada area) and the letter from the
General Manager, Argada area to the General Manager (Sales)/CCL dated April 8,
1994, he stated :
Having noted the entire
circumstances and facts and the availability of the coal at
Sirka/Religara/Gidi-C desired to be lifted by the party, you are advised to
forthwith effect to the transfer of allotments of Dirty Slurry and in the party
letter dated 2.4.94 and 9.4.94 for release of equivalent quantity of steam coal
from Sirka/Religara/Gidi-C collieries as requested for by them and recommended
by the concerned area, at the earliest.
7. Since the
directions contained in both the communications of the Coal Controller dated
April 12, 1994 addressed to the Chairman- cum-Managing Director of CCL were not
being implemented by CCL, the petitioners on April 18, 1994, filed two Writ Petitions
(Matters Nos. 940-941 of 1994) in the Calcutta High Court. Both the Writ Petitions
were disposed of by a learned single Judge (Mitra J.) by order dated April 18,
1994 whereby the Chairman- cum-Managing Director of CCL was directed to act in
terms of the communications dated April 12, 1994 sent by the Coal Controller within
a fortnight from the date.
This order was passed
by the learned single Judge without issuing notice to the appellants and by directing
that a copy of the Writ Petition be served upon Mrs. A. Quraishi, Advocate as she
generally appears on behalf of the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of CCL and
the Chairman-cum- Managing Director of CCL 'was directed to regularise her appointment
in the matter. The said order of the learned single Judge was, however, set
aside in appeal by the Division Bench of the High Court by order June 6, 1994
and the matter was remitted for reconsideration on merits.
Thereafter, the matter
was considered by Samaresh Banerjee J. who, after issuing notice to the parties,
by his judgment dated April 6, 1995, allowed both the Writ Petitions filed by
the petitioners and directed the appellants herein, who were respondents in the
Writ Petitions, to implement the orders of the Coal Controller dated April 12, 1994
forthwith. Letters Patent Appeals filed by the appellants against the said judgment
of the learned single Judge have been dismissed by the Division Bench of the High
Court (K.C. Agarwal CJ. and Tarun Chatterjee J.) by the impugned judgment dated
October 31, 1995. Hence these appeals.
"It can be seen from
the above-extract that the private company entered into two contracts with CIL
pursuant to two Notice Inviting Tenders (NITs). Subsequently, the private company
sought 17variation of the original terms of the contracts in so far as they
relate to the quality of coal and also the collieries from which the coal could
be secured. The same was directed to be given by the Coal Controller (one of
the accused) by his communications dated 12.04.1994. Complaining that the CIL and
its officers were not honouring the directions given by the Coal Controller, the
private company approached the Calcutta High Court by filing two writ
petitions, i.e. W.P. Nos. 940 and 941 of 1994.
The brief history of
the said writ petitions is taken note of by this Court in para 7 of the
judgment dated 18th March, 1997, extracted above. Eventually, both the writ
petitions were allowed by the judgment of the Calcutta High Court dated 6th
April, 1995 and the same was confirmed by the Division Bench in Letters Patent
Appeals by a judgment dated 31st October, 1995. Aggrieved by the same, CIL
approached this Court by the above-mentioned Civil Appeal Nos. 2004-2005 of 1997.
Both the appeals were dismissed.
matter did not end there. Complaining that the Coal India Ltd. and its officers
failed to comply with the judgment of this Court dated 18th March, 1997 in the
above-mentioned Civil Appeal Nos. 2004-2005 of 1997, the private company filed contempt
petitions Nos. 261-262 of 1997. The said contempt petitions were disposed of by
an order dated 14th July, 1997 by this Court. The operative portion of the said
order is as follows:-
find that in the contempt petitions the prayer of the applicants is that they
may be supplied coal at the notified price fixed by the Coal India Ltd. and
made effective for sale of coal with effect from April 1, 1997. Having regard
to the said prayer made by the applicants themselves in the contempt petitions,
we consider it just and appropriate in the interest of justice to direct that the
supplies of the coal that are to be made by the respondents as per the directions
of the Coal Controller during the period of next 20 months shall be made at
Rs.896/- per metric tonne, the notified price fixed by the Coal India Ltd. with
effect from April 1, 1977.
It is made clear that
the respondents are not restricted to supply coal at the rate of 10000 metric
tonne per month and that if there is availability of larger quantity of coal
the respondents can supply quantity in excess of 10000 metric tonne per month so
as to reduce the period of months for the supply but in no event the said period
shall be extended. Since the supplies are to be made at the rate of 10000 metric
tonne per month, it will be permissible for the applicants to furnish rotating bank
guarantee for 10000 metric tonne of coal per month.
It is also made clear
that the price at which the supply of coal is to be made as directed above,
shall be for the entire quantity of coal to be supplied by the respondents and there
shall be no variation in the said price. The contempt petitions as well as the interlocutory
applications Nos.5-6 are disposed of accordingly."
it appears that CIL did, in fact, supply coal to the private company allegedly not
only in compliance with the directions of this Court in its order dated 14th March
but also in excess of the legal obligations imposed by the orders of this
is in the above-mentioned background, the FIR, which is the subject matter of
the dispute in the instant appeal, came to be registered on 15th November 2000.
The crux of the FIR is that though the supplies by the Coal India Ltd. are
pursuant to the directions issued by the Calcutta High Court confirmed and
reinforced by the judgment dated 18.3.97 and order dated 14.7.97 of this Court
referred to above, such directions from the courts are consequences of the
failure on the part of the various accused (mentioned in the FIR) to bring the relevant
and crucial facts which in law disentitle the private company from getting any
relief either from this Court or from the Calcutta High Court.
According to the FIR,
the private company failed to comply with the twin obligations arising under
the two contracts referred to earlier, i.e. lifting of the coal contracted to be
purchased by it in accordance with the schedule agreed upon and making the
payment of money towards the sale price of the coal in terms of the schedule of
the payment agreed upon. The substance of the FIR is that the failure to bring the
above mentioned crucial facts to the notice of the Courts (both the Calcutta High
Court and this Court), is deliberate and due to a conspiracy between all the accused
of which the respondent is one.
the judgment under appeal, the said FIR was quashed. The only reason given is that
the supply of coal to the private company had been made in terms of a decision given
by the Calcutta High Court as approved by this Court at a price fixed by this
Court. Therefore, no Magistrate can examine the allegation that such a supply
of coal resulted in an unjust pecuniary advantage to the private company. The
operative portion of the judgment reads as under:
contended that the object of the First Information Report and the investigation
thereon was to unearth criminal misconduct conducted by the accused public servants
to obtain for CTCC wrongful pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means or by
abusing their position as public servants or while holding office as public servants
and accordingly offences said to have been committed includes those mentioned in
Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The alleged wrongful pecuniary advantage is obtaining of supply of coal at a less
As aforesaid supply of
coal had been obtained in terms of a decision given by this Court and approved
by the Supreme Court and at the price fixed by the Supreme Corut, no magistrate,
therefore, in the circumstances can decide that any unjust pecuniary advantage
was made available to CTCC by any of the accused public servants. For the reasons
aforesaid I quash the First Information Report impugned in this writ petition, all
investigations made pursuant to the said First Information Report and restrain Central
Bureau of Investigation from carrying on any further investigation on the basis
of the said First Information Report."
Additional Solicitor General, Shri P.P. Malhotra, appearing for the appellant very
vehemently submitted that: the only issue considered and decided by the
Calcutta High Court and confirmed by this Court was whether the Coal Controller
had the necessary legal authority to direct (by his two letters dated
12.4.1994) the variation of the terms of the two contracts entered into by the private
company and this Court did find that the Coal Controller had the requisite
legal authority to direct such variation. The mere existence of authority in the
Coal Controller to order variation in the terms of the contracts does not by
itself mean that the authority had been exercised legally and validly.
The Coal Controller
failed to take note of the fact that the private company had already committed a
breach of its contractual obligations to CIL. Having regard to the breach of
the contract committed by the private company, the Coal Controller should not
have exercised his authority in favour of such a defaulting purchaser. In other
words, the Coal Controller did not take all the relevant factors before
exercising his authority to grant variation in the terms of the contracts between
the private company and the Coal India Ltd. Shri Malhotra further submitted
that even in the legal proceedings before the Calcutta High Court and this Court,
these factors were not brought to the notice of the Courts by any one of the
It is argued that if only
the fact that the private company had already defaulted in its obligations
arising out of the two contracts entered into by it with the CIL had been
brought to the notice of the Courts, Courts would not have intervened in favour
of the private company. The gravamen of the charge in the FIR in issue is that the
failure to bring such crucial facts, which were most crucial for adjudicating
the rights and obligations of the private company and CIL, to the notice of the
Courts is the consequence of a criminal conspiracy by all the accused to enable
the private company to derive an unjust and illegal benefit at the cost of CIL.
Shri Malhotra, therefore, submitted that the judgment under appeal clearly
failed to consider this aspect and, therefore, unsustainable in law.
the other hand, Shri Gopal Subramanium, learned senior counsel appearing for
the respondent submitted that the judgment under appeal does not call for any interference
as the conclusion arrived at by the judgment under appeal is a logical
corollary to the earlier judgment in Civil Appeal Nos. 2004-2005 of 1997 and
order in Contempt Petitions Nos. 261-262 of 1997 of this Court.
the tenor of the impugned FIR, we understand the charge against the accused to
be as follows:
a. The private company committed
breach of contractual obligations arising under the two contracts entered into by
it with CIL.
b. The officers of the
CIL and CCL(shown accused in the FIR) are obliged in law (as per the terms of the
contract) to take penal action against the private company for such breach of the
c. The above-mentioned
officers/accused failed to take any such penal action.
d. On the other hand,
when the private company approached the courts seeking the enforcement of the
directions of Coal Controller, all the accused deliberately suppressed the fact
that private company had committed a breach of its contractual obligations,
thereby enabling the private company to obtain favourable order.
e. The suppression of
the crucial fact that the private company committed breach of its contractual
obligations was deliberate and intentional on the part of all the accused.
f. Such suppression is a
consequence of a criminal conspiracy between all the accused to enable the
private company to secure an illegal monetary gain by manipulating the judicial
have meticulously examined the judgment of this Court dated 18.3.1997. The entire
controversy in the said judgment revolved only around the authority of the Coal
Controller to issue the various directions such as were given by him on
12.04.1994. On an examination of the relevant provisions of law, this Court no
doubt held that the Coal Controller was legally competent to issue the said directions.
That the private company had already committed breach of contractual obligations
arising under the two contracts was not at issue. There is no discussion in
that regard in the said judgment.
the private company failed to comply with the legal obligations arising out of the
contracts entered into by it with the Coal India or its subsidiaries, depends on
the proof of the facts allegedly constituting the acts or omissions amounting
to the breach of the contracts on the part of the private company. To arrive at
any conclusion on the above question, it requires a detailed examination of the
The fact that the
supplies of coal were made to the private company pursuant to the orders of the
Calcutta High Court and confirmed by this Court by itself does not rule out the
possibility of a crime having been committed. It is well known that decisions
are rendered by courts on the basis of the facts pleaded before them and the issues
arising out of those pleaded facts.
As we have already pointed
out, the only issue projected on the basis of the facts placed before Calcutta
High Court and this Court is the competence of the Coal Controller to give
directions which in substance amounted to variation of the terms of the
contracts to which the private company and Coal India Ltd. are parties. This
court in Civil Appeal Nos.2004-2005 of 1997 declared that the Coal Controller had
the requisite legal authority to give such directions but did not examine any
exact terms and conditions subject to which the CIL accepted the offer of
private company are not available on record in the instant case. But it appears
from the FIR (which is the subject matter of dispute) that the private company
is required to lift the entire quantity of coal it agreed to purchase within a
period of 90 days from the date of allotment.
It also appears from
the FIR, that the private company is obliged to make the payments of the price
in a specified manner and schedule and also make a security deposit, the exact
nature of which is not mentioned either in FIR or in the petition or in the judgment
under appeal. We are, therefore, to make a conjuncture that deposit of money is
some kind of a guarantee for the performance of the contract on the part of the
to the judgment under appeal, as it is already noticed that the High Court quashed
the FIR only on the ground that the supply of coal had been obtained in terms
of a decision given by the Calcutta High Court and approved by this Court and for
the said reason no magistrate can, therefore, decide whether any unjust
pecuniary advantage was made available to the private company. For coming to such
a conclusion, the learned Judge made an `elaborate examination' of the Indian legal
system. But, in our opinion, the entire enquiry proceeded on a wrong premise
that no 26examination, as to how a judgment of a superior Court came into
existence, is permissible in the system of law which we follow.
Court on more than one occasion held that fraud vitiates everything including judicial
acts. In S.P. Chengal Varaya Naidu (Dead) By Lrs. Vs. Jagannath (Dead) By Lrs.
& Ors., (1994) 1 SCC 1, this Court observed as follows in para 1:- 1. "Fraud-avoids
all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal" observed Chief Justice Edward
Coke of England about three centuries ago. It is the settled proposition of law
that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity
and honest in the eyes of law. Such a judgment/decree - by the first court or
by the highest court - has to be treated as a nullity by every court, whether
superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any court even in collateral
in A.V. Papayya Sastry and Ors.Vs. Government of A.P. and Ors., AIR 2007 SC 1546,
this Court reviewed the law on this position and reiterated the principle. In paras
38 and 39 it was held as follows: 38. The matter can be looked at from a different
angle as well. Suppose, a case is decided by a competent Court of Law after
hearing the parties and an order is passed in favour of the applicant/plaintiff
which is upheld by all the courts including the final Court.
Let us also think of a
case where this Court does not dismiss Special Leave Petition but after granting
leave decides the appeal finally by recording reasons. Such order can truly be
said to be a judgment to which Article 141 of the Constitution applies.
Likewise, the doctrine of merger also gets attracted. All orders passed by the courts/authorities
below, therefore, merge in the judgment of this Court and after such judgment,
it is not open to any party to the judgment to approach any court or authority
to review, recall or reconsider the order. 27 39. The above principle, however,
is subject to exception of fraud.
Once it is established
that the order was obtained by a successful party by practising or playing fraud,
it is vitiated. Such order cannot be held legal, valid or in consonance with
law. It is non- existent and non est and cannot be allowed to stand. This is the
fundamental principle of law and needs no further elaboration.
Therefore, it has
been said that a judgment, decree or order obtained by fraud has to be treated as
nullity, whether by the court of first instance or by the final court. And it has
to be treated as nonest by every Court, superior or inferior. [emphasis
supplied]If a judgment obtained by playing fraud on the Court is a nullity and
is to be treated as non est by every Court superior or inferior, it would be strange
logic to hear that an enquiry into the question whether a judgment was secured by
playing fraud on the Court by not disclosing the necessary facts relevant for
the adjudication of the controversy before the Court is impermissible.
From the above judgments,
it is clear that such an examination is permissible. Such a principle is required
to be applied with greater emphasis in the realm of public law jurisdiction as
the mischief resulting from such fraud has larger dimension affecting the
larger public interest. Therefore, the conclusion reached by the judgment under
appeal that no Court can examine the correctness of the contents of the
impugned FIR, is unsustainable and without any basis in law.
The very complaint in
the FIR is that the judgment of the Calcutta High Court, as affirmed by this Court,
is a consequence of a deliberate and dishonest suppression of the relevant facts
necessary for 28adjudicating the rights and obligations of the parties to the said
to the question as to what amounts for securing a judgment by playing fraud in
the Court- In Chengal Varaya Naidu (supra), this Court categorically held that
the non-disclosure of all the necessary facts tantamounts to playing fraud on
the Courts. At para 6 of the said judgment, it was held as follows: "..............If
he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then
he would he guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite
allegation in the FIR is that the various accused deliberately
withheld/suppressed the fact that the private company, by the time it approached
the Calcutta High Court in writ petition Nos.940 and 941 of 1994, had already committed
breach of its obligations arising of the contracts from out of which the entire
litigation arose. A fact which is greatly relevant in deciding the entitlement
of the private company to seek various reliefs such as the ones sought by it
before the Calcutta High Court.
It is further
specific allegation in the FIR such a non-disclosure/suppression of the crucial
fact was wilful and deliberate pursuant to a conspiracy between all the accused
to secure an illegal and wrongful monetary gain to the private company. Therefore,
in our opinion the Judgment under appeal cannot be sustained.
to the question of the scope of the jurisdiction to quash an FIR, either in the
exercise of statutory jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. or under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, the law is well settled and this Court in a
catena of decisions laid down clear principles and indicated parameters which
justify the quashing of an FIR. We do not propose to catalogue all the cases
where the issue was examined but notice only two of them and indicate the consistent
principles laid down by this Court in this regard.
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, this Court at para 6 held: ".................It
is well-established that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be exercised
to quash proceedings in a proper case either to prevent the abuse of the process
of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Ordinarily criminal proceedings
instituted against an accused person must be tried under the provisions of the Code,
and the High Court would be reluctant to interfere with the said proceedings at
an interlocutory stage.
It is not possible, desirable
or expedient to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of
this inherent jurisdiction. However, we may indicate some categories of cases
where the inherent jurisdiction can and should be exercised for quashing the
proceedings. There may be cases where it may be possible for the High Court to
take the view that the institution or continuance of criminal proceedings
against an accused person may amount to the abuse of the process of the court or
that the quashing of the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of justice.
If the criminal
proceeding in question is in respect of an offence alleged to have been
committed by an accused person and it manifestly appears that there is a legal
bar against the institution or continuance of the said proceeding the High
Court would be justified in quashing the proceeding on that ground. Absence of the
requisite sanction may, for instance, furnish cases under this category.
Cases may also arise
where the allegations in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if
they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, 30 do not
constitute the offence alleged; in such cases no question of appreciating
evidence arises; it is a matter merely of looking at the complaint or the First
Information Report to decide whether the offence alleged is disclosed or not.
In such cases it would be legitimate for the High Court to hold that it would
be manifestly unjust to allow the process of the criminal court to be issued against
the accused person.
A third category of cases
in which the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be successfully invoked
may also arise. In cases falling under this category the allegations made against
the accused person do constitute an offence alleged but there is either no
legal evidence adduced in support of the case or evidence adduced clearly or manifestly
fails to prove the charge. In dealing with this class of cases it is important
to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence
or where there is evidence which is manifestly and clearly inconsistent with
the accusation made and cases where there is legal evidence which on its appreciation
may or may not support the accusation in question.
In exercising its
jurisdiction under s. 561-A the High Court would not embark upon an enquiry as
to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not. That is the function of
the trial magistrate, and ordinarily it would not be open to any party to invoke
the High Court's inherent jurisdiction and contend that on a reasonable appreciation
of the evidence the accusation made against the accused would not be sustained.
Broadly stated that is the nature and scope of the inherent jurisdiction of the
High Court under s. 561-A in the matter of quashing criminal proceedings, ...................."
In State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others AIR 1992 SC 604,
this Court after reviewing large number of cases on the question of the
quashing the FIR held at paras 108 and 109 as follows: "108.In the backdrop
of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under
Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series
of decisions relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article
226 or the inherent powers Under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted
and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of
illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of
the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it
may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised
and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of
myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if
they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not
prima-facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying
the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by
police officers Under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a
Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence
collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence
and make out a case against the accused.
the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute
only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated Under Section 155(2) of the
the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion
that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or
the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution
and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision
in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the
grievance of the aggrieved party.
a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking
vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and
109. We also give a
note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should
be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest
of rare cases; that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an
enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations
made in the F.I.R. or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent
powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to
its whim or caprice."
from the point of view of the law laid down in the above mentioned judgments, the
impugned FIR does not merit interference, as it is not a case of even the respondent
(writ petitioners) that the FIR is required to be quashed on any one of the
grounds legally recognised by this Court to be sufficient ground for quashing
all the above reasons, we are of the opinion that the judgment under appeal cannot
be sustained and the same is required to be set aside and we, accordingly, set aside
the same. The appeal stands allowed.
( P. Sathasivam )
( J. Chelameswar )
14th November, 2011.