LexSAMPAT SINGH AND ORS. versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c SAMPAT SINGH AND ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. DECEMBER 18, 1992 ' [S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN AND K JAYACHANDRA REDDY, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950-Article 136-Appeal by persons not parties to earlier proceedings-Locus standi of petitioners-Whether appeal main- tainable. Constitution of India, 1950-Article .136-Appeal-Appreciation of f acts-l'arty approaching court with ulterior motive-Liability of. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 173-Case registered u/ss. 161, 165, /PC and u/s. 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act-U'hether D Magistrate has jurisdiction. E F Petitioner Nos. i to 16, members of the Legislative Assembly of Haryana and petitioner Nos. 17 to 19 members of the Parliament jointly filed a Civil Writ Petition under Article-226 of the Cons.titution of India before the High Co ti rt seeking to direct an investigation by. Central Bureau of Investigation against one Ch. Bbajan Lal on the basis of F.I.R registered on the complaint making serious allegations of corruption, misuse of authority etc. and for setting aside the order of the Magistrate discharging the accused, Ch. Bhajan Lal. The High Court dismissed the petition by a brief order without going into the locus standi of the petitioners. Hence this SLP. When the very maintainability of this petition on the ground of locus standi of the petitioners was raised, it was contended that the perfunctory and mut~lated investigation, the hasty submission of the Cancellation G Report by the Police under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the unreasoned order of the Magistrate discharging Ch. Bhajan Lal without application of his judicial mind - writ large on the face of the final order dated 22.7.91 - were all under a cloud of suspicion and dust and, therefore, this Court in the interest of justice had to step into the matter H and direct a fresh investigation by the CBI; that Ch. Bbajan Lal by 728 ...... SAMPAT SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA 729 offering the post of Chairman of Khadi Board of Haryana State bad A inspired one Dharam Pal to file an affidavit withdrawing the allegations made in the complain~ and that Ch. Bhajan Lal had thus planned very meticulously and ingeniously to derive the final ~ail in the coffin of investigation and in that endeavour had become successful. Dismissing the Special Leave Petition, this Court HELD: 1. The petitioners were not at all parties to the earlier proceedings at any stage. Hence, the petitioners have no locµs standi to approach this Court for the reliefs sought for in this petition. (732-D] B Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, (1992] 4 SCC 305 and Simaranjit C Singh Mann v. Union of India and Another, (1992) 4 J.T. 441, referred to. 2.1. It is not for a Court to keep track of an investigation and watch its day to day progress but, of course, when an investigation culminates into a final report as contemplated under Section 173 of Cr. P.C., then the competent Court enjoins a· duty within its authority sanctioned by law to D scrupulously scrutinise the final report and the accompaniments by apply- ing its judicial mind and take a decision either to accept or reject the final report. (733-E] 2.2. The Court should not be indirectly used as an in_strumentality E by anyone to attain or obtain any beneficial achievement which one could not get through normal legal process and that if any one approaches the Court with ulterior motive, designed to wrench some personal benefit by putting another within the clutches of law and using the Court as a devise only for that end but not to get any legal remedy, then in such a situation the Court should heavily come upon such a person and see that the F authority of the Court is not misused. [732~G,H] . . ' 2.3. The complainant who initiated the law into motion alleging serious allegations against Ch. Bhajan Lal who was then holding a Cabinet rank in the Central Government, may become liable for criminal G and civil liability in case the allegations are not proved. [733-B] 2.4. Neither the State nor the complainant has challenged the Order of the Magistrate discharging the accused, presumably for the reasons that the Police has closed the investigation and sent its Cancellantion Report and that the complainant has expressed his desire in his affidavit H 730 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A not to probe into the allegations. (732-H; 733-A] 2.5. Whatever might have been the motive of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.