1

NON­REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  6396  OF 2012

MANOHAR M. GALANI …APPELLANT(S)

Versus

STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.        …RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

Deepak Gupta, J.

1. Briefly stated the facts necessary for disposal of this appeal

are that the appellant’s sister had started a firm in the name of

M/s. Jubilee Capital Market Services at Ulhasnagar for sale and

purchase of shares and  other related financial services.  The

appellant who was otherwise employed with the Punjab National

Bank was helping his  sister  in  the  firm.   One Mr.  Kishore K.

Keswani started investing in shares and stocks through the

aforesaid firm in March, 1992.   During 1993, the share market

2

crashed resulting in very heavy losses to all investors.  Mr.

Keswani, however, blamed the appellant for the loss of

approximately rupees 13 lakhs allegedly suffered by him.

Thereafter, the said Mr. Keswani instituted as many as 10 cases

against the appellant and his family members directly or with the

help of others out of which one was a civil suit and the remaining

9 were criminal cases.   In six of the criminal cases arrest

warrants were issued against the appellant and his family

members and they were illegally arrested.

2. The case of the appellant is that there was an illegal racket

in the State of Gujarat whereby some unscrupulous lawyers in

connivance  with  court  officials  were procuring  arrest  warrants

against the alleged accused without following the procedure

prescribed by law and without verifying whether there was any

truth in the complaint.  The appellant informed one Mr. Mahatre,

a journalist about the manner in which he was arrested.   Shri

Mahatre decided to carry out a sting operation.  He filed a

complaint and  managed to obtain arrest warrants against a

sitting Judge of the Bombay High Court, the Home Minister of

Maharashtra, 3 M.L.As., a spokesman of a national party and a

3

journalist.   After obtaining these warrants Shri Mahatre lodged

the same with the police to expose the scandal by which arrest

warrants were being issued.  According to the appellant, the sting

operation  was carried out at his instance.   This  matter  was

splashed across the newspapers and the police started

investigating the matter.  In fact, the Sessions Court, Nadiad took

suo motu notice and quashed the order of the Judicial Magistrate

First Class (JMFC) Dakor and recalled the warrants.   The case

was transferred from the JMFC, Dakor to JMFC, Nadiad.   

3. A public interest litigation was filed in the High Court by

Shri Ajit D. Padiwal, an advocate.   Shri Padiwal died during the

pendency of the petition but keeping in view the serious nature of

the issues involved the High Court continued with the appeal and

appointed an  amicus curiae  to assist it.   The appellant also

intervened  in  the  matter.  The criminal  proceedings  were  also

initiated against four persons before the Dakor Court.  The High

Court  by  an elaborate judgment  dated  15th/20th/21st  and 22nd

September, 2004 disposed of the  writ petition giving various

directions.  None has challenged those directions.  The challenge

is limited to the directions issued by the High Court that all the

4

courts where the 10 proceedings against the appellant and his

family members are pending should disposed of the proceedings

at the earliest.   

4. The contention of the appellant is that, in fact, during the

course of proceedings before the High Court various reports were

submitted to the High Court by the police officials which clearly

indicate that the cases  filed against the appellant  were  totally

false.   In many of the cases the complainant(s) was not even in

existence and remained absent and in some cases the

complainant denied having filed any case.   Therefore, the

appellant  prayed that the  proceedings in all the  10 cases  be

quashed.   

5. We may  also  note that the  appellant  had also filed  Writ

Petition (Criminal) No. 150 of 2006 in this Court praying for the

similar reliefs in which this Court had passed the following order:

“In view of the fact that in SLP(C) No.10008/2005 leave has been granted, we are not inclined to entertain this writ  petition  under  Article  32  of the  Constitution  of India by the same party.  The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.  We may, however, clarify that at the time of final disposal of the civil appeal, it will be open to the writ petitioners to urge any additional ground, which is raised in this writ petition subject to the leave of the Court.”

5

6.  Mr.  Gopal Sankarnarayanan, learned senior counsel has

drawn our attention to a number of  documents.  He candidly

admitted that in the public interest litigation there was no prayer

for quashing of the proceedings and only an intervention

application had been filed.   

7. The High Court was justified in holding that in the absence

of any application in this behalf, the relief could not be granted.

However, we may note that the High Court itself found that out of

10 cases, 3 cases already stand disposed of.  The proceedings

had been closed by  the magistrate  and  these need not  be  re­

opened again.  The cases were, however, remanded to the courts

of the magistrate only with a view to take further action in view of

the various directions given by the High Court including initiating

proceedings under Section 195 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.  

8. After the special leave petition was filed these proceedings

have remained stayed and as a result seven cases filed in 1994

are still pending.  Out of the 7 cases, one is summary suit being

Suit No. 67 of 1994, pending before 3rd  Joint Civil Judge,

6

Vadodara, Gujarat and one is a complaint case being CC No. 704

of 1994 pending before JMFC Dabhoi, Distt. Vadodara, Gujarat

under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.  The

other 5 cases being (i) Criminal Case No.1099 of 1993, pending

before JMFC, Dakor, Distt. Kheda, Gujarat, (ii) M. Case No. 11 of

1994, pending before JMFC, Dabhoi,  Distt. Vadodara, Gujarat,

(iii) Enquiry Case No. 6 of 1994, pending before JMFC, Bajwa,

Court No. 4, Gujarat, (iv) Enquiry Case No. 3 of 1994, pending

before JMFC, Municipal Court,  Makarpura, Baroda and (v)  CC

No. 288 of 1994 pending before JMFC, 18th Court of Metropolitan

Magistrate, Mirzapur, Ahmedabad.   Learned counsel for the

appellant submitted that though it is true that he had not prayed

for quashing of proceedings before the High Court, the appellant

may be granted liberty to file proceedings for quashing of these

cases  in view of the various reports given by the  investigating

officers before the High Court in public interest litigation being

Special Civil Application No. 13258 of 1994.   

9. We find merit in the submission of learned counsel for the

appellant.  Though  the  appellant  may not  have  made  specific

prayer for quashing of the proceedings, we cannot lose sight of

7

the fact that he was the whistle blower and an aggrieved person.

He has the right to challenge such criminal proceedings which,

according to him, have been  initiated  in total  violation of law.

According to the appellant, the sting operation and various police

reports filed before the High Court reveal a pattern of obtaining

illegal arrest warrants.

10. We are of the view that the appellant should not be denied

his right to question the initiation of criminal proceedings.

Therefore, while dismissing the appeal we direct that the

proceedings in the five cases  mentioned above shall remain

stayed for a further period of six weeks.   In the meantime, the

appellant is granted liberty to file appropriate proceedings before

the High Court for quashing the criminal proceedings in the five

cases mentioned above.  With regard to CC No. 704 of 1994 and

Summary Suit No.67 of 1994, we direct the concerned courts to

first issue notices to the complainant/plaintiff.   Only if the

complainant and the plaintiff appear before the concerned courts

and are interested in pursuing the complaint/suit, will notice be

issued to the appellant and/or his family members. In case the

plaintiff/complainant  appears and notices are  issued, the trial

8

court shall  make an effort to dispose all the two cases at  the

earliest and in any case not later than six months from the date

when the appellant herein puts in appearance.   

11. The appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

....................................J. (DEEPAK GUPTA)

....................................J. (SANJIV KHANNA)

New Delhi May 08, 2019