LexM.R. AJAYAN versus STATE OF KERALA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1448 : 2024 INSC 881 M.R. Ajayan v. State of Kerala & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 4675 of 2024) 20 November 2024 [C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the appellant has the locus standi to prefer this SLP against the impugned order; whether the High Court rightly held the proceedings in question to be hit by the bar u/s. 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C.; and whether the High Court could have ordered de novo steps to be taken against the appellant. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art. 136 – Locus standi of private individual – De novo trial – Permissibility – High Court, if could order de novo steps to be taken against the accused on the allegations made out in the quashed proceedings – Locus standi of the socially spirited person and an editor, to prefer SLP against the impugned order – High Court, if correct in holding that the proceedings hit by the bar u/s. 195(1)(b) – On facts, Australian national found in possession of charas in the pocket of his underwear – Seized articles and personal belongings kept in the custody of the Police Station – Thereafter, on an application on behalf of the Australian national-accused, his personal belongings were released to the appellant-junior lawyer of the counsel appearing for the accused – However, later, the underwear was returned by the appellant to the court – Sessions court convicted the accused under the NDPS Act, however, in appeal, acquitted him since the the said underwear was not of his size though observed that there was strong possibility of tampering with the seized article – Vigilance enquiry conducted and thereafter, FIR was registered – Appellant and the court staff chargesheeted for offences punishable under the Penal Code for conspiracy with the intention and preparation to cause the disappearance of * Author [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1449 M.R. Ajayan v. State of Kerala & Ors. evidence – Aggreived thereagainst, separate petitions filed before the High Court u/s.482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the proceedings on the ground that cognizance could not have been taken due to the bar created u/s.195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. – High Court quashed the order taking cognizance, however, directed to undertake appropriate measures in accordance with the procedure u/s.195(1)(b) Cr.P.C – Petitions before this Court, one by the appellant; and other by the socially spirited person and editor – Maintainability: Held: Locus standi of the appellant, does not come in the way of this Court hearing the same – Instant case, quashed by the High Court, involves serious allegations of interference with judicial processes which strike at the very foundation of both dispensation and the administration of justice – Thus, the appellant has the locus standi to prefer this SLP against the impugned order as it is incumbent upon this Court to check the correctness of the approach adopted by the High Court, and the locus of the appellant would not come in the way of the same – Approach of the High Court in quashing the order taking cognizance and proceedings emanating therefrom not correct – On a perusal of the FIR, it is clear that based on the letter issued by the High Court and by the District Judge, the offence was registered against the accused persons – Criminal proceedings clearly do not arise from a complaint by a private individual – High Court erroneously observed that there is no judicial order concerning the present proceedings – Alleged act is a glaring occurrence where the process of criminal prosecution stands interfered with, impugning upon the sanctity of judicial proceedings, resulting in a travesty of justice – Such actions not only erode public trust in the judicial system but compromise the principles of the rule of law and fairness, which are essential for the justice delivery system – Such incidents strike at the foundation of the independence and integrity of the judicial process, hence, it cannot be said that there is a lack of public interest – In the instant case, the accused allegedly received a material object in question, from the judicial custody, despite there being no specific order for release thereof, and subsequently tinkered/ assisted in tinkering with the same and thereafter substituted it for the original – High Court erred in holding that the proceedings were hit by the bar u/s. 195(1)(b) – Further, it cannot be said that the High Court, in the attending circ
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.