Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 876 OF 2002

Central Bureau of Investigation , Lucknow, U.P.       …..Appellant

Versus

Indra Bhushan Singh & Ors.                            … Respondents

With

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.877 OF 2002

J U D G M E N T

Madan B. Lokur, J.

1. The  three  questions  before  us  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  Crl. Appeal Nos. 876-877 of 2002   Page 1 of 14

Page 2

against  the  respondents,  and (iii)  if  a  sanction was  necessary,  

whether it was in -fact obtained. In our opinion, the first question  

must be answered 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 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 No. 5267 of  

1990 (purportedly filed by Dr. Sheetal Nandwani) and passed an  

order to the effect that the competitive 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  made  on  the  basis  of  marks  

obtained by the candidates in the MBBS course as has been done  

in MDS courses. With this brief order the writ petition was allowed.

3. In  compliance with the order  dated 25th May,  1990 the  

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.  

Crl. Appeal Nos. 876-877 of 2002   Page 2 of 14

Page 3

4. For reasons that are not relevant, the medical college in  

Meerut was not informed of the cancellation.  Therefore, Dr. Rahul  

-Verma, 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 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 in  Criminal  Appeal  No.876 of  

2002.

5. The order  dated 25th May,  1990 was challenged in  this  

Court and the result  of  the petition is  reported as  U.P. Junior  

Doctors’ Action Committee v. Dr. B. Sheetal Nandwani and  

Others.1

6. This Court found that no writ petition bearing no. 5267 of  

1990 was filed by Dr. Sheetal Nandwani and obviously therefore  

1

(1990) 4 SCC 633

Crl. Appeal Nos. 876-877 of 2002   Page 3 of 14

Page 4

no order was passed on 25th May, 1990 in the said case. It was  

found that the entire proceedings were fabricated 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 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.

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  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.

Crl. Appeal Nos. 876-877 of 2002   Page 4 of 14

Page 5

8. Be that as it may, on 26th August, 1991 a complaint was  

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  

the provisions -of Section 195(1)(b)(i) and Section 195(1)(b)(iii) of  

the 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  

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 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  

Crl. Appeal Nos. 876-877 of 2002   Page 5 of 14

Page 6

order dated 25th May, 1990 filed during the course of hearing, a  

learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench  

passed orders on 4th June, 1990 directing the State 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 vakalatnama filed along with the writ petition could  

not be confirmed. 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 accused  

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 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.  

Kandpal had the authority to file the complaint on behalf of the  

Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court.   

Crl. Appeal Nos. 876-877 of 2002   Page 6 of 14

Page 7

11. Be that as it may, the Magistrate took cognizance of the  

complaint  and  issued  summons  to  Dr.  Rahul  Verma  and  Indra  

Bhushan Singh.

12. At this stage, it is worth mentioning that 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  

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 195(1)(b) of Cr. P.  

C. is being obtained from competent authority (sic) of Allahabad  

High  Court  for  prosecuting  Dr.  Rahul  Verma  and  I.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 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  

complaint, Indra Bhushan Singh moved an application for being  

Crl. Appeal Nos. 876-877 of 2002   Page 7 of 14

Page 8

discharged  from  the  prosecution  of  the  case.   Apart  from  

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  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 Court and that was allowed by the  

order under appeal dated 4th February, 2000.

Decision of the High Court  14. In the High Court, three submissions were advanced on  

behalf  of  Indra  Bhushan  Singh.  It  was  contended,  firstly,  that  

before filing a complaint, the High Court ought to have conducted  

an inquiry as mandated by Section 340 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. We express no opinion  

on this issue and leave it open for adjudication in an appropriate  

Crl. Appeal Nos. 876-877 of 2002   Page 8 of 14

Page 9

case. Secondly, it was argued that the Allahabad High Court had  

not authorized Kandpal to file the complaint.  In this regard, it was  

held:

“A perusal of the original complaint itself shows that  the complaint was once type then again at internal  page 7 a fresh para was added at the bottom with  fresh  typewriter  with  fresh  ribbon  that  the  complainant  is  authorized to  file  this  complaint  on  behalf  of  the  Hon’ble  High  Court,  Lucknow Bench,  Lucknow. On this typing initial has been made by Sri  Kandpal.  Apparently,  the  complaint  shows  that  Sri  Kandpal  has  got  some authority  on behalf  of  High  Court.  The  petitioner  alleged  that  there  was  absolutely  no  such  authority.  On  9.6.1999also,  the  petitioner had argued that there was no order of the  High  court  to  file  the  complaint  against  Indra  Bhushan Singh and the - present argument was also advanced that there is no  such  order  in  writing  on  record  to  show any  such  authority.  In  the  Lower  Court  also  this  point  was  raised  that  there  is  no  order  of  the  High  Court  authorizing  Sri  Kandpal  for  filing  such  a  complaint  against  Indra  Bhushan Singh.  The  prosecution  was  granted several dates but record was not produced.  Such  a  plea  was  also  taken  in  the  application  for  discharge  dated  9.12.1995  in  para  15.  The  entire  record of  the High Court was summoned and both  the counsels for the parties, namely, Sri Amarendra  Nath Singh and Sri D.R. Azad went through the entire  records to search out whether Sri Kandpal has been  authorized to file  complaint.  Sri  Azad searched out  the entire records of the case but could not find any  such direction of the Court passed by the High Court  authorizing 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  Bhushan  

Crl. Appeal Nos. 876-877 of 2002   Page 9 of 14

Page 10

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.  

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 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 in the case of Indra  

Bhushan Singh.

Proceedings in this court and conclusion 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 Marwah v.  

Meenakshi Marwah.2  In our opinion, this question will arise only  2

Crl. Appeal Nos. 876-877 of 2002   Page 10 of 14

Page 11

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 Kandpal, it  

is no complaint at all, and that would make the 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  

authorized. Realizing this as the primary issue, this Court 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.  

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 Late  Ram Sundar  Tripathi  presently  posted  as  Officer-On-

(2005) 4 SCC 370

Crl. Appeal Nos. 876-877 of 2002   Page 11 of 14

Page 12

Special  Duty  (Litigation),  High  Court,  Allahabad,  the  deponent herein, do hereby solemnly affirm and state  as under:  

1. That, the deponent is at present  posted as Officer-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  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  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  High  Court  and  the  enquiry has now been concluded  and it has been reported that Sri  H.D. Kandpal, the then -

4. Deputy Registrar (Administration)  of the Lucknow Bench of the High  Court, Allahabad; who had retired  from service on November 1992,  

Crl. Appeal Nos. 876-877 of 2002   Page 12 of 14

Page 13

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  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  

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  

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  

behalf of the Allahabad High Court, the other questions urged by  

the learned Additional Solicitor General do not arise. They would  

Crl. Appeal Nos. 876-877 of 2002   Page 13 of 14

Page 14

certainly arise if the complaint had been a valid complaint, which  

it was not.

-

22. Under  these  circumstances,  in  view  of  the  categorical  

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.

                    ……………………………………J

                    (Ranjana Prakash Desai)

 ……………………………………J

            (Madan B.  Lokur) New Delhi; May 2, 2014

Crl. Appeal Nos. 876-877 of 2002   Page 14 of 14