LexCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, LUCKNOW, U.P. versus INDRA BHUSHAN SINGH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2014] 8 S.C.R. 718 CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION , LUCKNOW, U.P. V. INDRA BHUSHAN SINGH & ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 876 of 2002) MAY 2, 2014 [RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI AND MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ.] C Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.195(1)(b)(iii) - Prosecution for offences in relation to proceedings of High Court - Complaint by Deputy Registrar of High Court for offences punishable uls 120-8, rlw ss.1931 0 196.420 /PC - Requirement of authorisation by High Court to file complaint - Held: The affid~vit filed_ on behalf of Allahabad High Court makes it clear that Deputy Registrar had filed complaint against the two respondents without any authority conferred on him by High Court -Therefore, Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of it or proceeded E with the matter - He lacked jurisdiction to do so since there was no valid complaint before him. Respondent no. 1 in Crl.A No. 877 of 2002 filed a Writ Petition No. 5548 of 1990 in the Lucknow Bench of the F Allahabad High Court in which he sought and was granted on 4.6.1990, the same relief as was stated to have been granted by order dated 25.5.1990 in Writ Petition No., 5267 of 1990, i.e. that th'e competitive. examinatio'A. scheduled to be held on 27.5.1990 for admission to post• G graduate medical courses in the State Medical Golleges · ought not to be held. When the order dated 25.5.1990 was challenged before Supreme Court it was found that no writ petition bearing No. 5267 of 1990 was filed and no order dated 25.5.1990 was ever passed. The Supreme H 718 CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION , LUCKNOW, 719 U.P. v. INDRA BHUSHAN SINGH Court directed that the entire matter be investigated by A · · CBI. On 26.8.1991 a complaint ~s filed by the Deputy Registrar (Administration), Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI) against respondent no. 1 in Crl.A No. 877 of 2002 and his counsel i.e. respondent no. 1 in Crl.A. No. B 876 of 2002 alleging commission of offences punishable u/s. 1208 IPC read with ·ss. 193/196/420 and u/s. 193 IPC. The Magistrate took cognizance and•issued summons to the respondents. Respondent no.1 in Crl.A. No. 876 of · 2002 filed an application for being discharged from the c case, inter alia, on the ground th.at the complaintfiled by the Deputy Registrar was without authorisation and the paragraph indicating the authorisation was subsequently added in the. complai~t. The Magistrate rejected the prayer. However, the High Court allowed his prayer 0 holding that the complaint filed by the Deputy Registrar was without any authority. Following the order of the High Court, the Magistrate on the application filed by r.espondent no. 1 in Crl.A. No. 877 of 2002, closed the case against him. E Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. Pursuant to the orders passed by this ,Court in the case filed by the U.P. Junior Doctors Action Committee, the CBI submitted to this Court a "Self F Contained Note" dated 27.8.1991 under cover of a letter dated 28.8.1991 in which it was stated, inter a/ia, that a .statutory complaint under provisions of s. 195(1)(b) of Cr. P. C. "is being obtained from competent auth.ority" of . Allahabad High Court for prosecuting the respondents. G This jndicates that the Deputy Registrar had no authority to fi.le the complaint on 26.8.1991 as claimed by him since the position 'on 28.8.1991 was that the necessary sanction was "being obtained". [para 12] (724-C-E] H 720 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 8 S.C.R. A U.P. Junior Doctors' Action Committee v. Dr. B. Sheetal Nandwani and Others 1990 (1) Suppl. SCR 130.= (1990) 4 sec 633 - referred to. 1.2. It is quite cl~ar from the affidavit filed on behalf 8 of the Allahabad High Court that the Deputy Registrar had filed the complaint against the two respondents · without any authority conferred on him by the High Court.· Therefore, the Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of it or proceeded with the matter. He lacked C the jurisdiction to do so since there was no valid complaint before him. [para 19-20) [728-D-F] D Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah 2005 (2) SCR 708 = (2005) 4 sec 370 - cited. Case Law Reference : 1'990 (1) Suppl. SCR 130 referred to para ·5 I 2005 (2) SCR 708 cited para 16 ·. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal E No. 876 of 2002. F From the Judgment and Order dated 04.02.2000 of the High Court of Jud
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.