NON-REPORTABLE    

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2250  OF 2011 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