SANJAI TIWARI versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. on 16 December 2020

1. Leave granted.

C

2. This appeal has been filed questioning the order dated 09.09.2020passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Application underSection 482 Cr.P.C. filed by respondent No.2 on which application theHigh Court directed the trial court to expedite the criminal trial andconclude the same at the earliest.D

3. The appellant is an accused in FIR No.02/2006, VigilanceDepartment, Lucknow under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A & 120BIPC and Section 13(1) C/D read with 13(2) of Prevention of CorruptionAct, 1988. The Vigilance Department of State of Uttar Pradeshcommenced an inquiry on a complaint filed by one R.K. Choudhary.EWrit Petition No.45047 of 2005 was filed by the appellant in the HighCourt challenging the Vigilance Inquiry initiated against him. The HighCourt directed on 22.08.2005 that unless complainant R.K. Choudharyis examined first no inquiry can be proceeded with against the appellant.On 08.12.2005, the Secretary, Vigilance, U.P. directed lodging of an FIRagainst the appellant and five others. On the basis of which FIR No.02/F2006 was registered against the appellant. Writ Petition No.572 of 2006was filed by the appellant in which the High Court stayed the orderdated 08.12.2005 passed by the Secretary, Vigilance Department whichorder was continued by order dated 31.12.2006. In PIL No.35628/2013the High Court by an order on 04.07.2013 directed conducting of aGpreliminary investigation by CBI. Writ Petition No.45047 of 2005 filedby the appellant was dismissed due to non-appearance of counsel on29.01.2020. After which charge-sheet dated 23.05.2020 was filed bythe Vigilance Department against the appellant before the Court ofAdditional District Judge/Special Judge(A/C), Court No.5, Gorakhpur,U.P. Respondent No.2 filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. onH

04.08.2020 seeking direction to Special Judge to expedite and concludeSpecial Trial No.520/2020. Respondent No.2 in his application inparagraph 6 disclosing his locus has made the following averments:

“6. That the applicant is a social activist and an Advocate byprofession and a person having an urge to positively contribute tothe society in all possible ways. He puts it on oath that he is notfiling this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for any personalinterest. He or any of his relations are not going to be benefitedby filing the application.”

4. Respondent No.2 has further stated in his application thatalthough FIR was lodged on 09.01.2006 but it got delayed by tacticsopted by the accused persons. The Vigilance Department completedthe investigation after about 14 years and still the accused persons aretrying to get away from the charges. The aforesaid application filed byrespondent No.2 came before the High Court for consideration on09.09.2020 which application stood disposed of by the following order:

“The instant application has been filed to expedite and concludeSpecial Trial No.520 of 2020, “State of U.P. vs. Sanjai Tiwari”relating to Case Crime No.02 of 2006, under Sections 420, 467,468, 471, 477A & 120B IPC and Section 13(1) C/D read with13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Kursi,District Barabanki, pending in the court of Additional District Judge/Special Judge, Anti Corruption Act, Court No.5, Gorakhpur.

Learned Senior Counsel submits that the special trial pendingbefore the court below be expedited.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, theapplication stands disposed of directing the Court concerned toexpedite the proceedings of the aforesaid case and conclude thesame, at the earliest possible, on day to day basis without grantingany unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, in accordancewith law, provided there is no impediment.”

5. Learned counsel for the appellant questioning the order of theHigh Court submits that the High Court committed error in entertainingthe application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at the instance of respondentNo.2 who had no locus standi to file a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.It is submitted that the High Court without issuing any notice to the A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aappellant who was an accused in the trial and was impleaded asrespondent No.2 in 482 Cr.P.C. application passed the order.

6. It is further submitted that the present was not a case where itcan be said that any delay is caused by the accused. It is submitted thatrelevant fact is that proceeding consequent to lodging of FIR remainedBstayed by the High Court for entire period due to which any charge-sheet could be filed, which fact was not brought into the notice of theHigh Court when the order impugned was passed. It is submitted thateven lodging of FIR against the appellant is challenged before the HighCourt by filing a writ petition which was dismissed on non-appearanceon 29.01.2020. Appellant filed a restoration/recall application seekingCrestoration of Writ Petition No.45047/2005 on 15.06.2020.

7. Learned counsel for the State submits that all criminal trialswhere offences involved are under the Prevention of Corruption Acthave to be held on day to day basis and no exception can be taken to theorder passed by the High Court.D

8. Respondent No.2 although had appeared in this proceeding on03.11.2020 through counsel but subsequently has instructed his counselnot to appear any further and failed to appear on 09.12.2020 which wasthe date fixed by this Court.

9. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel forEthe parties and perused the records.

10. From the facts which have been brought on record it is clearthat Criminal Trial No.520 of 2020 was registered only after filing ofcharge-sheet on 23.05.2020 in FIR 02/2006, not even charges have beenFframed by the trial court as on date.

11. It is well settled that criminal trial where offences involvedare under the Prevention of Corruption Act have to be conducted andconcluded at the earliest since the offences under Prevention ofCorruption Act are offences which affect not only the accused but theentire society and administration. It is also well settled that the HighGCourt in appropriate cases can very well under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or inany other proceeding can always direct trial court to expedite the criminaltrial and issue such order as may be necessary. But the present is a casewhere proceeding initiated by respondent No.2 does not appear to be abona fide proceeding. Respondent No.2 is in no way connected with H

H

initiation of criminal proceeding against the appellant. Respondent No.2in his application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in paragraph 6 has describedhim as a social activist and an Advocate. An application by a personwho is in no way connected with the criminal proceeding or criminal trialunder Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot ordinarily be entertained by the HighCourt. A criminal trial of an accused is conducted in accordance withprocedure as prescribed by the Criminal Procedure Code. It is theobligation of the State and the prosecution to ensure that all criminaltrials are conducted expeditiously so that justice can be delivered to theaccused if found guilty. The present is not a case where prosecution oreven the employer of the accused have filed an application either beforethe trial court or in any other court seeking direction as prayed byrespondent No.2 in his application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

12. With regard to locus of a third party to challenge the criminalproceedings or to seek relief in respect of criminal proceedings ofaccused had been dealt with by this Court in Janata Dal vs. H.S.Chowdhary and others, (1993) 1 SCC 756. In the above case theCBI had registered FIR under the IPC as well as under the Preventionof Corruption Act, 1947 against 14 accused. On an application filed bythe CBI the learned trial Judge allowing the application to the extent thata request to conduct necessary investigation and to collect necessaryevidence which can be collected in Switzerland passed order on05.02.1990 which is to the following effect:

“In the result, the application of the CBI is allowed to theextent that a request to conduct the necessary investigation andto collect necessary evidence which can be collected inSwitzerland and to the extent directed in this order shall be madeto the Competent Judicial Authorities of the Confederation ofSwitzerland through filing of the requisite/proper undertakingrequired 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 whichpetition was dismissed by the Special Judge. A criminal Revision underSections 397/482 Cr.P.C. was filed by H.S. Chowdhary in the High Courtto quash the order of the Special Judge, which Revision was also dismissedby the High Court. The appeals were filed in this Court by differentparties challenging the said order including H.S. Chowdhary. This Court A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

Awhile dismissing the appeals filed by the H.S. Choudhary and othersmade the following observations:

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

”26. Even if there are million questions of law to be deeply goneinto and examined in a criminal case of this nature registeredagainst specified accused persons, it is for them and them aloneto raise all such questions and challenge the proceedings initiatedagainst them at the appropriate time before the proper forum andnot for third parties under the garb of public interest litigants.

“27. We, in the above background of the case, after bestowingour anxious and painstaking consideration and careful thought toall aspects of the case and deeply examining the rival contentionsof the parties both collectively and individually give our conclusionsas follows:

1. Mr. H.S. Chowdhary has no locus standi (a) to file the petitionunder Article 51A as a public interest litigant praying that noletter rogatory/request be issued at the request of the CBI andhe be permitted to join the inquiry before the Special Courtwhich on 5.2.90 directed issuance of letter rogatory/request tothe Competent Judicial Authorities of the Confederation ofSwitzerland; (b) to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the HighCourt under Sections 397 read with 401 of the CrPC challengingthe correctness, legality or propriety of the order dated 18.8.90of the Special Judge and (c) to invoke the extraordinaryjurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPCfor quashing the First Information Report dated 22.1.90 and allother proceedings arising therefrom on the plea of preventingthe abuse of the process of the Court.

…………

…………

…………

28. In the result, we agree with the first part of the Orderdated 19.12.90 of Mr. Justice M.K. Chawla holding thatMr. H.S. Chowdhary and other intervening parties have nolocus standi. We, however, set aside the second part of theimpugned order whereby he has taken suo moto cognizanceand issued show cause notice to the State and CBI andaccordingly the show cause notice issued by him is quashed.”

14. This Court in the above case laid down that it is for the partiesin the criminal case to raise all the questions and challenge the proceedingsinitiated against them at appropriate time before the proper forum andnot for third parties under the garb of Public Interest Litigants.

15. We are fully satisfied that respondent No.2 has no locus in thepresent case to file application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. asking theCourt to expedite the hearing in criminal trial. We have already observedthat all criminal trials where offences involved under the Prevention ofCorruption Act have to be concluded at an early date and normally noexception can be taken to the order of the High Court directing the trialcourt to expedite the criminal trial but in the present case the fact is thatproceedings have been initiated by respondent No.2 who was notconcerned with the proceedings in any manner and the respondent No.2has no locus to file the application which was not clearly maintainable,we are of the view that the impugned judgment of the High Court dated09.09.2020 cannot be sustained.

16. In the result, the appeal is allowed, judgment of the High Courtdated 09.09.2020 is set aside. The application filed by respondent No.2under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. We, however, make it clear thatnone of the observations made by us in this order shall affect the criminaltrial. We, however, observe that it will be open for the trial court toexpedite the criminal trial, the offences being the offences under thePrevention of Corruption Act, 1988, subject to any order passed by theHigh Court in pending proceedings.

Kalpana K. Tripathy

Appeal allowed.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H