LexRAJIB RANJAN & ORS. versus R. VIJAYKUMAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2014] 10 S.C.R. 982 RAJIB RANJAN & ORS. V. R. VIJAYKUMAR (Criminal Appeal Nos. 729-732 of 2010) OCTOBER 14, 2014 [J. CHELAMESWAR AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: ss.197, 482 - Quashing of proceedings - Tender invited by Electricity Board C - Tender application of respondent rejected after obtaining performance report/certificate issued by appellant no.2, the Chief Engineer - Suit filed against the Electricity Board challenging rejection of his application - Suit withdrawn - Respondent filed writ petition which was a/so dismissed and D SLP thereagainst also dismissed Respondent filed complaint u/ss. 120B, 468, 420 and 500 against appellants that certificate was false and forged - Issuance of summons - High Court refusing to quash the proceedings on the ground that though the appellants are public servants, the alleged offences E committed by them were not in discharge of their normal duties and hence s.197 was not attracted - Held: Rejection of tender was in furtherance of and in discharge of the official duties by the appellant - Action of the respondent in filing the criminal complaint was not bonafide and amounted to misuse F and abuse of the process of law - The a/legations of fabricating the records were mischievously made as an afterthought just to give colour of criminality to a civil case - High Court ought to have quashed the proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers uls.482. G Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. Section 197, Cr.P.C. states that if any offence is alleged to have been committed by a public servant who cannot be removed from the office except H 982 RAJIB RANJAN & ORS. v. R. VIJAYKUMAR 983 by or with the sanction of the Government, the Court is A precluded from taking cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction of the competent authority specified in this provision. The sanction is necessary if the offence alleged against public servant is committed by him "while acting or purporting to act in the discharge B of his official duties". In the instant case, the Tender Committee had rejected the tender on the ground that the respondent did not fulfill the pre-qualifying conditions. Before doing so, the respondent was asked time and again to send the performance report but he failed to c comply even when he had assured to do the needful. Still, in order to verify the claim of the respondent and to consider his bid on merits, though not strictly required, the appellant was deputed to get the desired information from JSEB. He met the officials of JSEB and submitted 0 his report to the effect that the works carried out by the respondent was not satisfactory. Even, the General Manager of the said Power Station furnished his report wherein it was summed up that due to the defects in the scanning system, supplied by the respondent, generation was adversely effected and the said Electricity Board was not satisfied with the equipment supplied by the respondent. Even the report of the technical experts went against the respondent as it opined that the respondent was not technically suitable on the technical vetting and comparative data. On the basis of that, the respondent's tender document was not opened and returned and he was informed accordingly. All this clearly happened in furtherance of and in discharge of the official duties by E F the appellant. [Paras 10, 11, 15) [993-G-H; 994-A; 996-F- H; 997-A-E] G 2. The respondent filed a civil suit. However, withdrew the suit. Once the suit is withdrawn, that acts as constructive res judicata having regard to the provision of Order XXlll Rule 1, CPC. Also, when suit is H 984 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 10 S.C.R. A dismissed under Order IX Rule 8 CPC, fresh suit under Order IX Rule 9 is barred. Even when the respondent himself invited order of dismissal in the civil suit, he filed a writ petition against the order passed in the civil court dismissing his suit for non-prosecution, but the same was s also dismissed by the High Court. SLP preferred by the respondent was also dismissed. When he did not succeed in the said attempt, he came out with the allegations of forgery. Thus, the action of the respondent in filing the criminal complaint was not bonafide and c amounted to misuse and abuse of the process of law. The attempt was made by the respondent to convert a case with civil nature into criminal prosecution. The H
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.