Hardeep Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRIMINAL) NO.1658/2010

HARDEEP SINGH APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2251 OF 2011

ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRIMINAL)D NO.23364/2008

HARDEEP SINGH APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

Aftab Alam,J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These two appeals are filed against orders passed by the

Madhya Pradesh High Court in two separate cases though arising from

the same set of facts.

3. The appellant, Hardeep Singh was engaged in running a

coaching centre, called "Deepika Classes" where students were given

tuition to prepare them for entrance tests for different professional

courses. On June 8, 1992, it was reported to the Collector, Jabalpur,

Raghav Chandra that the appellant had asked some of his students to

pay him Rs.50,000/- for giving them the question papers for the pre-

medical test in three subjects. The Collector decided to set up a trap for

catching the appellant. The complainant before the Collector had with

him only Rs.10,000/- at that time. The Collector, therefore, called the

City Magistrate and instructed him to take out Rs.10,000/- from the

Collectorate Nazarat. The currency notes taken out from the Nazarat

were marked and the decoy was sent to pay to the appellant

Rs.20,000/-, including the money taken out from the Nazarat. Then a

raid was conducted at the house of the appellant in which Rs. 20,000/-

with the marked currency notes of Rs.10,000/- were recovered. The

appellant was arrested and a criminal case (Criminal case No. 314 of

2004) was instituted against him under Section 420 read with section 34

of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of The [Madhya

Pradesh] Recognized Examinations Act, 1937. He was brought to the

police station in handcuffs and his photographs in handcuffs appeared

in the local newspapers. The police submitted charge sheet in the case

on the basis of which the appellant was put up on trial. The trial went

on, as is not uncommon in this country for several years at the end of

which he was acquitted on August 26, 2004.

4. Even while facing the trial, the appellant filed a complaint

before the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Jabalpur (which was

registered as Criminal Case No.66/2000) alleging that the Collector

Raghav Chandra and other Government functionaries, named as

accused in the complaint had committed offences punishable under

Sections 395, 468, 469 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The appellant's complaint was also based on the raid conducted by the

Collector along with the police officials at his house on June 8, 1992.

The learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint for want of sanction

under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Against the

order dismissing the complaint, the appellant moved the Sessions Court

in revision. The revision was allowed and as directed by the Sessions

Court the appellant's complaint came to be registered.

5. The accused in the complaint filed by the appellant then

moved the High Court in a quashing application (Miscellaneous

Criminal Case No.1676/2000) and the High Court by order dated

September 17, 2002 allowed the application holding that the complaint

was not maintainable against the public servants in the absence of

sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. The appellant challenged the order

of the High Court before this Court in SLP(C) No.179/2003, but it was

dismissed in limine.

6. The appellant, then, moved the State Government for grant of

sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. for prosecution of Raghav Chandra

and the other Government officers named as accused in his complaint.

The State Government, however, refused to give sanction and rejected

his application by order dated December 12, 2006.

7. The appellant challenged the Government order in a Writ

Petition (Writ Petition No.4777 of 2007) before the Madhya Pradesh

High Court. The Writ Petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge

of the court by order dated August 31, 2007. The appellant, then, filed a

review petition (M.C.C. No.2324/2007) but that too was dismissed by

order dated May 10, 2007. The appellant, then, preferred an intra-court

appeal (W.A. No.1682/2007) which after due consideration by a

Division Bench of the High Court was dismissed by order dated May 14,

2008. This order comes under challenge in the Criminal Appeal arising

from SLP (Criminal) No.1658 of 2008.

8. We have heard the appellant at length, who appeared in

person. We have also carefully gone through the materials on record.

We find that the Division Bench of the High Court on a detailed

examination of the matter found and held that there was no material to

suggest even a prima facie case against the Collector, Jabalpur, and

the other Government officers accused by the complainant and,

therefore, there was no ground to interfere with the decision of the State

Government not to accord sanction for their prosecution. We find the

view taken by the High Court is unexceptionable and there is no scope

for any interference in the matter. We, accordingly, dismiss the appeal

arising from Special Leave Petition (criminal) No.1658 of 2010.

9. Coming now to the other criminal appeal arising from SLP

(Criminal) D No.23364 of 2008, as noted above, the appellant was

acquitted in the criminal case on August 26, 2004. He, then, filed a Writ

Petition (Writ Petition No.4368/2004) before the Madhya Pradesh High

Court contending inter alia that while he was taken to the police station

and was kept there in custody in the night of June 8, 1992, he was

handcuffed by the police without there being any valid reason. A

number of daily newspapers published his photographs and on seeing

his photograph in handcuffs his elder sister, who loved him like a son,

was so shocked that she expired on June 17, 1992. The appellant also

contended that the prosecution knew from the beginning that the cases

registered against him were false and it purposefully caused delay in

conclusion of the trial causing great harm to his dignity and reputation

and violating his fundamental right to speedy trial guaranteed under

Article 21 of the Constitution. In that Writ Petition too, a direction was

sought for prosecution of persons impleaded as respondents 2 to 20 for

criminal defamation and other provisions of law. A learned Single Judge

of the High Court, however, admitted the writ petition, vide order dated

February 24, 2005, on the limited question of grant of any

compensation to the appellant for the delay in conclusion of the criminal

case against him. The learned Single Judge came to find and hold that

though the prosecution was stretched over a period of more than 10

years, the appellant himself was responsible for the delay, as on a

majority of occasions adjournments were taken on his behalf. The

Single Judge, therefore, found and held that there was no case for any

compensation to the appellant and, accordingly, dismissed the Writ

Petition. The appellant filed a review petition (M.C.C. No.7325 of 2005)

but that too was dismissed.

10. Against the orders passed by the Single Judge, the appellant

filed an intra-court appeal (W.A. No.175 of 2007). The Division Bench

of the High Court, hearing the appeal, examined the order-sheet of the

trial proceedings and disagreeing with the learned Single Judge found

and held that the responsibility for the delay in the trial proceedings for

five years from March 15, 1999 to May 6, 2004 lay with the State as no

timely steps were taken by the prosecution to produce and examine the

witnesses before the trial court. The Division Bench observed that an

expeditious trial, ending in acquittal, would have restored the appellant's

personal dignity but the State, instead of taking prompt steps to produce

and examine the prosecution witnesses delayed the trial for long five

years.

11. The Division Bench further held that there was no warrant for

putting the appellant under handcuffs. His handcuffing was without

justification and it had not only adversely affected his dignity as a

human being but had also led to unfortunate and tragic consequences.

12. The Division Bench, however, noted that even though there

was an undue delay of five years in concluding the appellant's trial, his

liberty was not affected inasmuch as he was not in imprisonment but

was on bail.

13. In light of these findings, the Division Bench held that the

appellant would not be entitled to a large amount of compensation as

claimed by him and taking an overall view of the matter awarded him a

compensation of Rs.70,000/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand), without

prejudice to any claim that he might make for damages.

14. The appellant is not happy with this order. He has not filed any

suit in civil Court for damages. His constant refrain before us was that

the Collector, Jabalpur and the other Government functionaries whom

he perceived as his oppressors and perpetrators of the alleged offences

against him must be sent behind bars. He seems to suffer from an

aggravated sense of persecution and at times emotions and anger

tended to get better of him.

15. But on that issue we cannot help him at all. It is now concluded

by an order of this Court that the complaint filed by the appellant cannot

proceed in the absence of sanction by the government for prosecution

of the accused named in the complaint. The State Government has

declined to grant sanction and the High Court has rightly found that the

order of the State Government does not suffer from any infirmity and

does not warrant any interference by the court. The prayer of the

appellant, therefore, to send the accused behind bars cannot be

entertained.

16. Coming, however, to the issue of compensation, we find that in

light of the findings arrived at by the Division Bench, the compensation

of Rs.70,000/- was too small and did not do justice to the sufferings and

humiliation undergone by the appellant. In the facts and circumstances

of the case, we feel that a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs)

would be an adequate compensation for the appellant and would meet

the ends of justice. We, accordingly, direct the State of Madhya

Pradesh to pay to the appellant the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two

Lacs) as compensation. In case the sum of Rs.70,000/- as awarded by

the High Court, has already been paid to the appellant, the State would

naturally pay only the balance amount of Rs.1,30,000/- (Rupees One

Lac thirty thousand)

17. In the result, criminal appeal arising from SLP (Criminal)

No.1658 of 2010 is dismissed and criminal appeal arising from SLP

(Criminal) D No.23364 of 2008 is allowed to the extent stated above.

18. All pending applications are dismissed.

.................................J.

(Aftab Alam)

..................................J.

(Ranjana Prakash Desai)

New Delhi;

December 5, 2011