Holding

The petitioners lack locus standi and the magistrate lacks jurisdiction to act on the cancellation report; the order of discharge is set aside and the case is to be sent to the Special Judge.

Summary

Petitioners, comprising 16 MLAs and 3 MPs, filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a CBI investigation into alleged corruption by Minister Bhajan Lal and the setting aside of a magistrate's order of discharge. The High Court dismissed the petition without addressing the petitioners' locus standi, prompting a Special Leave Petition. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners were not parties to the earlier proceedings and therefore lacked locus standi to approach the Court for the reliefs claimed. While noting that courts may scrutinise a final report under Section 173 of the CrPC, it observed that the magistrate had no jurisdiction to act on the cancellation report for offences triable only by a Special Court under Sections 161, 165 of the IPC and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Consequently, the magistrate's order was set aside and the matter was directed to the competent Special Judge, and the SLP was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioners have locus standi to file a writ petition seeking CBI investigation and setting aside the magistrate's order.
Whether a court may intervene in the investigation process and scrutinise a Section 173 report.
Whether the magistrate has jurisdiction to act on a cancellation report for offences triable only by a Special Court.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. Section 173
Constitution of Indias. Article 136, s. Article 226
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. Section 161, s. Section 165
Prevention of Corruption Acts. Section 5(2)

Subjects

locus standipublic interest litigationCBI investigationSection 173 CrPCSpecial Court jurisdictionPrevention of Corruption Actmagistrate jurisdictionArticle 226

Judgment

A SAMPAT SINGH AND ORS.
v.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

DECEMBER 18, 1992

B
'

[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.
c
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.

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
E 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.

F 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 B

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]

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 the complainant for
withdrawal of his complaint, he, after having fought the case up to this
Court in quashing proceedings cannot have any justification in requesting
the investigating officer not to probe into the allegations and staging a
B 'walk out' of the Court. On the other hand, he ought to have submitted to
the discipline of the Court, especially when he has initiated the proceed-
ings as a public interest litigant. [733-C] ·

3.1. In the instant case, the case is registered under Sections 161 and
165 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of
C Corruption Act, which offences can only be tried by a Special Court.
[733-G]

3.2. It was necessary for the Magistrate to have sent the final report
to the Special Court which is alone competent to try the case. [734-B]
D
A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak & Anr., (1988] Suppl. 1 SCR 1 and K Siva
Kilnchi Reddy v. State of A.P., 1991 Andhra Pradesh Law Journal 1,
Referred to.

3.3. The Magistrate before whom the cancellation report had been
E placed, instead of acting on it by himself, should have forwarded the same
to the Special Judge but he has not done so especially when he has no
power to try the offences. (734-D]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Petition (c) No.
16764 of 1991.
F
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.9.1991 of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court iti C.W.P. No. 14500 of 1991.

Kapil Sibba~ K. Parasaran, R.K. Garg, Ms. Indu Malhotra, Ms. Indu
Goswamy, Mahabir Singh and S. Srinivasan for the appearing parties.
G
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, J. The above Special Leave Petition is
preferred by the petitioners of whom petitioner Nos. 1 to'-16 are members
of the Legislative Assembly of Haryana and petitioner Nos. 17 to 19 are
:H members of the Parliament. They all jointly filed a Civil Writ Petition No.
SAMPAT SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA [PANDIAN, J.] 731

14500 of 1991 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India· before the A
High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh seeking various reliefs, the
main of which being to direct an investigation by Central Bureau of
Investigation against Ch. Bhajan Lal on the basis of F.I.R. No. 372 of 1987
of Sadar Police Station, registered on the complaint of Dharam Pal, making
serious allegations of corruption, misuse of authority etc. and for setting B
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. The relevant portion of the im-
pugned order is as follows:

"3. The reasons disclosed in the writ petition and canvassed
c
by the learned counsel for the petitioners broadly are, that
respondent No. 2 being in the helm of affairs of State, there
is a reasonable apprehension in the minds of the people
that a fair and impartial investigation in the aforesaid F.I.R.
is not expected, more so when respondent No. 2 in the D
earlier case has already refuted the allegations levelled
against him in the affidavit filed by him l>efore the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. It has been vehemently stressed by the
learned counsel for the petitioners that the State Police
Agency will not be in a position to hold free and fair E
investigation and on that account, the investigation should
be conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation.

4. After hearing the learned. counsel for the petitioners and
having gone through the writ petition, we do not find any
merit in the contentions, as in substance the prayer of the F
petitioner is to ask this Court to pass an order which may
have the effect of running directly counter to the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as contained in the conclud-
ing paragraph of the judgment referred to above. Dis-
missed."
G
Hence this SLP.

When the very maintainability of this petition on the ground of locus
standi of the petitioners was raised, Mr. R.K. Garg, Jeamtd 5enior senior
counsel forcibly contended that the perfunctory and mutilated investiga- H
732 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A tion, the hasty submission of the Cancellation Report by the Police under
Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure arid the unreasoned order
of the Ma~trate discharging Ch. Bhajail ·Lal without application of his
judicial mind - Writ large on the face of the final order dated 22.7.91 - are
all under a cloud of suspicion and dust and, therefore, this Court in the
a
mterest of justice has to step into the matter and direct. fresh investigation
B by the CBI. He further contended that Ch. Bhajan Lal by .offering the post
of Chairman of Khadi ~oard of Haryana State: bad ·inspired Dharam Pal
to file an affidavit withdrawing the allegations made in the complaint and
that Ch.· Bhajan Lal had .thus planned very meticulously and ingeniously to
derive the final nail in the coffin of investigation and in that endeavour has
C become successful, '

These petitioners were not at all parties to the earlier proceedings
at any stage. Hence, notwithstanding the above 5ubinission, 'we unreserved-
·
ly hold that these petitioners ha·je n6 l~rus stinai' to approach this Court .
D for the reliefs souglit for in this petitibn. In this ·eonnection, reference may
be made to the deCisions of.this Court in Janata.DaJ ~- H.S. Chowdhary,
(1992] 4 sec 305 and Sim<iranjit Singh Mann v. Union of India and Another,
(1992] 4 iT 44L The copies of the· affidavit of Oharam PaI and the order
of the Magistrate, discharging the acc11sed have been produced before us.
We also· sent for the 'file, ooritaining the said affidavit arid :discharge orders
·· E and perused the same. 1 , · · · •"

Though it is true that Dharam.Pal who appeared befor_e this Court
supporting the cas_e of the. State of Haryana in (:ivil. App~al. No. 5412 of
1990 with full vigour, appears to h!iVe SUQ,denly reversed back from his
F earlier stand and given an affidayit withdra~g .his allegations. The ques-
tion whether t~e offei:ing of the post o_f Chairman .of Khadi Board of
Haryana as a quid pro quo for tendering the affidaVit or not; does not fa.II
within our province in· the present proceeding. Further we do not like to
express any opinion on his conduct except observing that the Court should
not be indirectly used as an instrumentality by anyone to attain or obtain
G any beneficial achievement which one could hot 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 authority -of-the Court is not
H misused. Neither the State nor the complainant, Dharam Pal has chal-
.
SAMPAT SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA [PANDIAN, J.] 733

lenged the Order of the Magistrate discharging the accused, presumably A
for the reasons that the Police has closed the investigation and sent its
Cancellation Report and that Dharam Pal has expressed his desire in his
affidavit not to probe into the allegations. We have gone through the entire
file as well as the Order of the Magistrate. Except observing that 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 B
Government, may become liable for criminal and civil liability in case the
allegations are not proved. Whatever might have been the motive of
Dharam Pal for withdrawal of bis complaint, he, after having fought the
cas~ up to this Court in quashing proceedings cannot have any justification
in requesting the investigating officer not to probe into the allegations and
staging a 'walk out' of the Court. On the other hand, he ought to have C
submitted to the discipline of the Court, especially when he has initiated
the proceedings as a public interest litigant.

Be that as it may, having regard to the various facts and circu.mstan-
ces as brought to our notice, we feel that it has become necessary that this
Court on its own bas to examine the legality of the Order of the Magistrate. D

Needless to say, 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 E
sanctioned by law to scrupulously scrutinise the final report and the ac-
companiments by applying its judicial mind and take a decision either to
accept or reject the final report. In the present case, that stage has come
on the submission of the final report, namely the cancellation report, by
the Investigating Officer.
F
We shall now examine whether the Magistrate has got power to act
on the basis of the cancellation report one way or the other under Section
173 of the Code.

In the instant case, the case is registered under Sections 161 and 165
of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of G
Corruption Act, which·offences can only be tried by a Special Court. We
think it is not necessary to expatiate the proposition of law in this regard
but suffice to refer to the decision in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak & Anr.,
\1988) Suppl. 1 SCR 1, where in at page 44, the following dictum is laid
d~ H
734 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A "Section 7(1) of the 1952 Act creates a condition which is
sine quo non for the trial of offences under Section 6(1) of
the said Act. The condition is that notwithstanding anything
contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other
law, the said offences shall be triable by a Special Judges
only."
B
In the light of the above observation, it was necessary for the
Magistrate to have sent the final report to the Special Court which is alone
competent to try the case. /

Reference may also be made to K Siva Kanchi Reddy v. State ofA.P.,
c 1991 Andhra Pradesh Law Journal 1, to which one pf us (K. Jayachandra
Reddy, J.) was a party.

Reverting to the case on hand, the Magistrate before whom the
cancellation report had been placed, instead of acting on it by himself,
D should have forwarded the same to the Special Judge but he has not done
so especially when he has no power to try the offences.

Under these circumstances, we set aside the order of the Magistrate
dated 22nd July 1991 and direct him to transmit all the papers along with
the cancellation report to the Special Judge having jurisdiction. The Special
E . judge to whom the entire matter will be transmitted may, after going into
the records, pass the necessary orders according to law.

The Special Leave Petition is dismissed subject to our suo moto
direction as indicated above.

V.P.R. Petition dismissed.