MANOHAR M. GALANI versus ASHOK N. ADVANI

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 458 · Decided: 17-11-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MANOHAR M. GALAN! 
v. 
ASHOK N. ADVANI 
NOVEMBER 17, 1999 
B 
[G.B. PATTANAIK AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950/Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: Article 
226/Section 482-Scandal in functioning of a Subordinate Court in Gujarat-
Public interest petition filed-High Court took cognizance and directed 
C inquiry-Accused persons in the analogous complaints filed petitions for 
quashing of the complaints-High Court quashed the complaints and also 
dismissed the public interest petition-appeal preferred-Held, High Court 
in exercise of its powers under extraordinary jurisdiction cannot interfere 
with the collateral proceeding initiated by itself 
D 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: Sections 195 and 482-Complaints 
filed by appellants against the accused persons-Alleged lodging of false 
complaints against appellants-Complaints challenged before High Court-
High Court quashed the complaints-On appeal-Held, High Court was not 
justified in elaborately discussing the merits of the case and coming to the 
E co11c/usion that Section 195 will be a bar. 
The appellanUcomplainant filed a complaint alleging that the accused, 
KK had invested money in shares and stocks, when the share market crashed 
in Stock Exchange. KK, however, made appellant responsihle and pressurised 
him to compensate the loss, and on his refusal KK lodged false criminal 
F complaints against appellant and his family members in various places in 
pursuance of which the appellant and his family members were arrested and 
lodged in jails. It was also alleged that KK threatened that in case of their 
release on bail, they would be arrested in some other case after being made 
an accused. Local press covered the incident and exposed the entire scandal 
G being carried out in Court at Dakor in the State of Gujarat. In the newspaper, 
it was revealed that warrants of arrest could be issued against anyone from 
the said Court on the mere asking. On coming to know of the entire episode, 
a social activist filed a public interest petition in the High Court of Gujarat. 
The High Court directed D.G. of Police to conduct an inquiry and submit 
report. A number of reports were submitted before the High Court which 
H 
458 
MANOHARM. GALAN! v. ASHOK N. ADV AN! 
459 
according to the appellant established innocence of his family members. A 
Pending the said public interest petition when the complaints were being 
investigated into, the accused persons in the complaint case moved the High 
Court. The High Court quashed the said two complaints and the pending public 
interest petition as well. Hence the present appeals. 
The appellant contended that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction B 
in quashing the FIRs and the public interest petition in which the High Court 
itself had directed inquires. It was contended that in view of gross 
irregularities committed by the accused persons and undue harassment of 
the complainants, complaints could not have been quashed on the finding that 
Section 195 Cr.P.C. would be a bar to proceed further. Respondents contended C 
that various subject matters of the complaint were already being inquired into 
and therefore, allowing any further inquiry would be an abuse of the process 
of the Court. However, non justification of quashing of the public interest 
petition was conceded by the respondents. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. So far as the public interest petition is concerned, not only 
the counsel for both sides agreed that the same ought not to have been set 
aside but it is also difficult to understand how the High Court in exercise of 
D 
its power under extraordinary jurisdiction can interfere with a collateral 
proceeding initiated by the High Court itself in an application filed in public E 
interest. There cannot be any dispute that the facts revealed a serious scandal 
in the functioning of some subordinate Court in the State of Gujarat and, 
therefore, the High Court took cognizance of the matter and directed inquiry 
to be conducted, and on the basis of the said inquiry, it was open for the High 
Court to issue necessary directions and at that stage the impugned order has F 
emanated. The impugned judgment setting aside the aforesaid public interest 
petition is erroneous and is, therefore, set aside. [462-B-D] 
2. So far as the quashing of the complaints and inquiry on the basis of 
FIR registered by the complainant are concerned, the High Court was not 
justified in interfering with the same b

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.