HARDEEP SINGH Vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Bench: AFTAB ALAM,RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI
Case number: SLP(Crl) No.-001658-001658 / 2010
Diary number: 23365 / 2008
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