CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, LUCKNOW, U.P.versusINDRA BHUSHAN SINGH & ORS.

                        [2014] 8 S.C.R. 718


A    CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION , LUCKNOW,
                        U.P.
                                 V.
                INDRA BHUSHAN SINGH & ORS.
                (Criminal Appeal No. 876 of 2002)
B                           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
  196.420 /PC - Requirement of authorisation by High Court
0
  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
  of the Allahabad High Court that the Deputy Registrar
8
  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]

         Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah 2005
    (2) SCR 708 = (2005) 4 sec 370 - cited.

D                        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.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 04.02.2000 of the
    High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Crl. Case No. 1875
    of 1999.
F
                                  WITH

    Crl: A. No. 877 of 2002.

       P.P. Malhotra, ASG, T.A. Khan, Chetan Chawla, B.V.
G Balramdas, P. Parmeswaran for the'Appellant.

        Ranjeet Kumar, M.C. Dhingra, Aviral Shukla, Ravi Prakash
    Mehrotra, Abhinav Kumar Malik, Prasanjeet Kr. Chakravarti,
    Kaushik Poddar for the Respondents.

H         The Judgment of tl)e Court was deJivered by
  CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, LUCKNOW,               721
          U.P. v. INDRA BHUSHAN SINGH
      MADAN B. LOKUR, J. 1. ·The three questions before us A
are: (i) whether the complaint filed against the respondents
under Section 195{1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 was authorized by the Allahabad High Court; (ii) whether
it was necessary to obtain a sanction from the Allahabad High
Court for filing the complaint against the respondents, and (iii) B
if a sanction was necessary, whether it was in -fact obtained ..
In our opinion, the first question must be answ~red in the
negative'. Consequently, the second and third questions do not
arise or are, at best, academic in nature and need not be
answered. As such, the orders under appeal call for no c
interference.

The facts

      2. On 25th May, 1990 a learned Single Judge of the
.Allahabad High Court is said to have dealt with Writ Petition    D
 No. 5267 of 1990 (purportedly filed by Dr. Sheetal Nandwani)
 and passed an order to the effect that the compet.itive
 examinations scheduled to be held on 27th May, 1990 for
 admission in post-graduate medical courses in State medical
 colleges ought not to be held. Instead, admissions should be     E
 made on the basis of marks obtained by the candidates in the
 MBBS course as has been done in MOS courses. With this
 brief order the writ petition was allowed.

     3. In compHance'with ttie order dated 25th May, 1990 the
                                                                  F
State Government cancelled the scheduled competitive
examinations in seven medical colleges in Uttar Pradesh and
a direction issued to grant admission on the basis of MBBS
results.

      4. For reasons that are not relevant, the medical college   G
in Meerut was not informed of the cancellation. Therefore, Dr.
Rahul -V.erma, like several others, participated in the
examination held on 27th May, 1990. However, unlike others
he filed Writ Petition No. 5548 of 1990 in the Lucknow Bench
of the Allahabad High Court ·in which he sought and was           H
      722       SUPREME COURT·REPORTS               (2014] 8 S.C.R.


A     granted, on 4th June, 1990 the same relief as Dr. Sheetal
      Nandwani on the basis of the order dated 25th May, 1990. He
      was represented in the case by his lawyer Indra Bhushan Singh.
      Dr. Rahul Verma is one of the respondents in Criminal Appeal
      No.877 of 2002 while Indra Bhushan Singh is the respondent
B     in Criminal Appeal No.876 of 2002.
'f'       5. The order dated 25th May, 1990 was challenged in this
      Court and the result of the petition is reported as UP. Junior
      Doctors' Action Committee v. Dr. B. Sheetal Nandwani and
      Others 1•
c
       6. This Court found that no writ petition bearing no. 5267
  of 1990 was filed by Dr. Sheetal Nandwani and obviously
  therefore no order was passed on 25th May, 1990 in the said
  case. It was found that the entire proceedings were fabricated
D and fake and this Court was satisfied that there was deep
  rooted conspiracy which resulted in the purported order dated
  25th May, 1990. Consequently, this Court passed appropriate
  orders in the case and also directed that -the entire matter be
  investigated by the CBI which was required to identify the
E persons behind the deep rooted fraud and bring them to book
  without any delay. It was observed that the purity of the judicial
  stream should not be permitted to be polluted by a clandestine
  move such as the one that was the subject matter of discussion
  and citizens should not be misled by the actions of conspirators.
F      7. Pursuant to the directions given by this Court to
  investigate the conspiracy, the CBI searched the premises of
  Dr. Rahul Verma and found a copy of the order dated 25th May,
  1990. The CBI also carried out investigations with regard to the,
  role of Indra Bhushan Singh and others. We were informed by
G the learned Additional Solicitor General that the persons
  responsible for the fraud leading to the order dated 25th May,
  1990 have not yet been identified although about 24 years have
  gone by.

H     1.   (1990) 4 sec 633.
  CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION , LUCKNOW, 723
 U.P. v." INDRA BHUSHAN SINGH [ MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

      8. Be that as it may.. on 26th August, 1991 a complaint was      A
filed by Shri H.D. Kandpal, Deputy Registrar (Administration),
Lucknow Bench .of the Allahabad High Court in the Court of the
Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI) in Lucknow against Dr. Rahul
Verma and Indra Bhushan Singh .. The complaint was filed under
1he provisions -of Section 195(1}(b)(i) and Section 195(1)(b)(iii)     B
of th~ Code of Criminal Procedure and sought punishment of
the accused persons under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal
 Code (IPC) read with Sections 193/196/420 thereof and
 independently under Section 193 of the IPC.

      9. The complaint gives the background facts leading to its
                                                                       c
filing and goes on to state, inter alia, that after he had filed the
writ petition, but before it was presented to the court, Dr. Rahul
Verma substituted four pages in the writ petition as filed. In
these pages, a reference is made to the purported order dated
25th May, 1990 and two of the pages were signed by Indra               D
Bhushan Singh. During the hearing of the writ petition on 4th
June, 1990 a photocopy of the purported order dated 25th May,
1990 was filed in court by Indra Bhushan Singh. On the basis
of this writ petition with the interpolated or substituted pages
and the purported order dated 25th May, 1990 filed during the          E
course of hearing, a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High
Court, Lucknow Bench passed orders on 4th June, 1990
directing the Stat~ Government to act in accordance with the
purported order dated 25th May, .1990. The complaint states,
however, that the signature of Dr. Rahul Verma -on the                 F
vakalatnama filed along with the writ petition could not be
ccinfjrmed. In the complaint, it was prayed that cognizance of
offences committed by Dr. Rahul Verma and Indra Bhushan
Singh under Section 120-B read with Sections 193, 196, and
420 of the IPC and Section 193 of the IPC be taken and the             G
accu$ed persons, that is, Dr. Rahul Verma and Indra Bhushan
Singh be summoned to face trial for the offences said to have
been committed by them.

     10. The complaint, as originally filed on 26th August, 1991
                                                                       H
    724     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2014] 8 S.C.R.


A   did not mention that H.D. Kandpal had the authority to file it on
    behalf of the Allahabad High Court. But a paragraph was
    subsequently inserted in the complaint to the effect that H.D.
    Kand pal had the authority to file th e complaint on behalf of the·
                                        1




    Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court.
B
         11. Be that as it may, the Magistrate took cognizance of
    the complaint and issued summons to Dr. Rahul Verma and
    Indra Bhushan S!ngh.

        12. At this stage, it is worth mentioning that pursuant to tht!
C 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 Contained Note" dated 27th August, 1991 under cover of
  a letter --dated 28th August, 1991 in which it was stated, inter
  alia, that "A statutory complaint under provisions of Section
D 195(1 )(b) of Cr. P. C. is being obtained from competent
  authority (sic) of Allahabad High Court for prosecuting Dr. Rahul
  Verma and l.B. Singh Advocate." In other words, Kandpal had
  no authority to file the complaint on 26th August, 1991 as
  claimed by him since on 28th August, 1991 the necessary
E sanction was "being obtained". It is on this basis that learned
  counsel for the accused persons submitted that a paragraph
  to the effect that Kandpal was authorized to file the complaint
  was inserted in the complaint subsequently and illegally.

        13. Subsequent to the Magistrate taking cognizance of the
F complaint, Indra Bhushan Singh moved an application for being
  discharged from the prosecution of the case. Apart frorn
  contesting the matter on its merits, in the sense that no case
  was made out for proceeding with the complaint, one of the
  grounds taken by him was to the effect that the complaint was
G filed without due authorization. By an order dated 2nd April,
  1999 the Magistrate rejected the application on merits, but did
  not advert to the issue regarding authorization (in favour of
  Kandpal) to file the complaint. -This led Indra Bhushan Singh
  to file Criminal Case No.1875 of 1999 in the Allahabad High.
H
  CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION , LUCKNOW, 725
 U.P. v. INDRA .BHUSHAN SINGH [ MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
Court and that was allowed by the order_ un~ -appeal dated            A
4th February, 2000.         ·

Decision of the High Court
        14. In the High Court, three submissions were 'advanced
  on t>ehalf of Indra Bhushan Singh. It was contendec(; firstly, -that B
 ~before filing a complaint, the Hig!l .Court :ough' to have
 oonducted an inquiry as mandated by Section 34Q:of'the Code
 of Criminal Procedure. The High Court, in the order under
  appeal, decided this issue in his favour and held that an,inquiry
. ought to have been conducted before the complaint was filed. C
_We express no opinion on this issue and leave 'it open for
  adjudication in an appropriate case. Secondly, if was argued
  that the Allahabad High Court had not authori?;ed Kahdpal to
  file the complaint. In this regard, it was held:      ·
                                                                      D
      "A perusal of the original complainfit~lf.S.h()Ws tHatthe
      complaint was .9nce type then agai11 at lntemalpage 7 a
      fresh para was added at the bottom withf~~-sh typewriter
      with fresh ribbon that the complainant is authorized to file
      this complaint onbehalf of the Hon'ble High Court, Lucknow E
      Bench.Lucknow. On this typing initial has been made by
      SriKandpal. Apparently, the complaint shows that Sri
      Kandpal has got some authority un behalf of Hig~Court.
      The petitioner alleged that there was absolutely no such
      authority. On 9.6.1999also, t~e petitioner had argued that F
      there was no order of theHigh court to file the complai-nt
      against Indra Bhushan Singh and the -present argument
      was also advanced that there is nosuch order in writing on
      record to show any suchauthority. In the Lower Court also
    - this point was raised that there is no order of the High
      Courtauthorizing Sri Kandpal for filing such a G
      complaintagainst Indra Bhushan Singh. The prosecution
      wasgranted several dates but record was not
      produced.Such a plea was also taken in the application
      fordischarge dated 9.12.1995 in para 15. The entire record
      of the High Court was summoned and boththe counsels for H
    726       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 8 S.C.R.


A         the parties, namely,.Sri AmarendraNath Singh and Sri D.R.
          Azad went through the entirerecords to search oufwhether
          Sri Kandpal has beenauthorized to file complaint. SitAzad
          searched outthe entire records of the case but could not
          find anysuch direction of the Court passed by the High
B         Courtauthorizing Sri Kandpal to file the complaint. Thus,
          the complaint filed by Sri Kandpal is without any authority
          and is to be quashed merely on this ground."

         Thirdly, it was contended on the merits of the allegations
    made, that there was no case for proceeding against Indra
C   Bhushan Singh. The High Court decided this issue also in
    favour of Indra Bhushan Singh. In our opinion, it is not necessary
    to go into the merits of the case since it is quite clear that the
    complaint deserves to be quashed on the sole ground that
    Kandpal was not authorized to file it.
D
         15. Following the order passed by the High Court, Dr.
    Rahul Verma also moved an application for being discharged
    from the prosecution and by an order dated 7th April, 2001 the
    Magistrate accepted the application and closed the case
E   against him. The order -passed by the Magistrate is the subject
    matter of appeal in Criminal Appeal No.877 of 2002 and it is
    based on the order dated 4th February, 2000 passed by the
    High Court i'~ the case of Indra Bhushan Singh.

    Proceedings in this court and conclusion
F
          16. Before us, learned Additional Solicitor General sought
    to contend that it was not necessary to obtain the sanction of
    the Allahabad High Court to prosecute Dr. Rahul Verma and
    Indra Bhushan Singh. He placed reliance on Iqbal Singh.
G   Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah. 2 In our opinion, this question
    will arise only if the complaint filed by Kandpal against Dr. Rahul
    Verma and Indra Bhushan Singh was an authorized complaint.
    If the complaint was filed without any authority conferred on

H 2. (2005) 4 sec 310.
  CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION , tUCKNOW, 727
 U.P. v. INDRA BHUSHAN SINGH [ MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

Kandpal, it is no complaint at all, and that would make the         A
requirement of a sanction completely irrelevant.
      17. Therefore, it is essential to first answer the primary
 question, that is, whether or not the complaint filed by Kandpal
 against Dr. Rahul Verma and Indra Bhushan Singh was at all
 ~uthorized. Realizing this as the primary issue, this Court        8
·passed an order on 28th October, 2009 to the effect that the
 Allahabad. High Court is required to be impleaded as a party
 respondent "for an-effective hearing of these appeals, and to
 do complete justice between the parties." Accordingly, notice
 was issued to the Allahabad High Court.                            C
     18. In response to the notice issued by this Court, an
affidavit dated 28th January, 2010 was filed on behalf of the
Allahabad High Court. The affidavit reads as follows:
     "I, Shamsher Chandra aged about 52 years son of                D
     LateRam Sundar Tripathi presently posted as Officer-On-
     (2005) 4 SCC 370 Special Duty (Litigation), High Court,
     Allahabad, thedeponent herein, do hereby solemnly affirm
     and stateas under:
      1.    That, the deponent is at present posted as Officer-     E
            On-Special Duty (Litigation), High Court, Allahabad,
            and as such is fully conversant with the facts and
            circumstances of the instant case and is competent
            and duly authorized to swear the instant affidavit.
      2.    That, it is stated that no authorization was given by   F
            the High Court for filing of the complaint dated
            26.08.1991 before the Special Judicial Magistrate,
            C.B.I., Lucknow, by the Deputy Registrar
            (Administration) of the Lucknow Bench of the High
            Court, Allahabad. As such, no record in relation        G
            thereto is available or existent.
      3.    That, a fact finding enquiry in the matter of the
            alleged authorization to the then Deputy Registrar
            (Administration) of the Lucknow Bench of the High
            Court, Allahabad was initiated by the Allahabad         H
    728     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2014) 8 S.C.R.


A               High Court and the enquiry has now been
                concluded and it has been reported that Sri H.D.
                Kandpal, the then Deputy Registrar (Administralion)
                of the Lucknow Bench of the High Court, Allahabad;
                who had retired from service on November 1992,
B               was responsible for lodging the complaint dated
                26.08.1991 before the Special Judicial Magistrate,
                C.B.I., Lucknow without any sanction/approval of the
                High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. A true copy
                of the fact finding Enquiry Report dated 14.12.2009
c               and its supplementary report dated 22.12.2009 of
                the Enquiry Officer in the same enquiry are being
                annexed herewith and is marked as Annexure-1
                (colly) to this affidavit."
        19. It is quite clear from the affidavit filed by the Allahabad
o   High Court that Kandpal had filed the complaint against
    Dr.Rahul Verma and Indra Bhushan Singh without any authority
    conferred on him by the High Court. This is now beyond
    question.
        20. Since the complaint by Kandpal was filed without any
E authority, in our opinion; the Magistrate could not have taken
  cognizance of it or proceeded with the matter. He lacked the
  jurisdiction to do so since there was no valid complaint before
  him.
         21. In view of the factual position as stated on affidavit on
F   behalf of the Allahabad High Court, the other questions urged
    by the learned Additional Solicitor General do not arise. They
    would certainly arise if the complaint had been a valid
    complaint, which it was not. -
       22. Under these circumstances, in view of the categorical
G stand of the Allahabad High Court that no sanction or
  authorization was given to Kandpal to file a complaint against
  Dr. Rahul Verma or Indra Bhushan Singh, there is no merit in
  these appeals and they are accordingly dismissed.
H Rajendra Prasad                                   Appeals dismissed.