The Supreme Court has delivered a significant judgment concerning the quashing of illegal arrest warrants, following the High Court directions. The case involves various parties, including the petitioner and respondent, in a complex legal battle surrounding the issuance of warrants without due process. This ruling marks a crucial step in ensuring justice and reform in the judicial system.
Facts
- Shri Mahatre carried out a sting operation, obtaining arrest warrants against various individuals including 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 journalist.
- The warrants were lodged with the police to expose the scandal of issuing arrest warrants for financial gains causing heavy losses to investors.
- Mr. Keswani blamed Shri Mahatre for the loss of approximately 13 lakhs suffered by him due to the sting operation.
- Appellant’s sister started M/s. Jubilee Capital Market Services for sale and purchase of shares, where the appellant, an employee of Punjab National Bank, was assisting.
- Mr. Keswani invested in shares through the firm in March, 1992, and faced losses when the share market crashed in 1993.
- Shri Mahatre claimed the sting operation was carried out at his instance.
- As a result of the sting operation, Mr. Keswani filed 10 cases against the appellant and his family, including one civil suit and nine criminal cases.
- The High Court disposed of the writ petition by giving various directions on 15, 20, 21, and 22 September 2004.
- The criminal proceedings against four persons were initiated before the Dakor Court.
- The Sessions Court in Nadiad took suo motu notice and quashed the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) in Dakor, recalling the warrants.
- The case was transferred from the JMFC in Dakor to the JMFC in Nadiad.
- A public interest litigation was filed by Shri Ajit D. Padiwal, an advocate, in the High Court.
- Despite Shri Padiwal’s demise during the petition, the High Court continued with the appeal and appointed an amicus curiae to assist.
- The serious nature of the issues led to the continuation of the case even after Shri Padiwal’s passing.
Also Read: Succession of Properties: Rule of Primogeniture vs. Law of Rulership
Arguments
- Learned counsel for the appellant requested for liberty to file proceedings for quashing of cases due to reports by investigating officers in public interest litigation.
- The appellant had not prayed for quashing of proceedings before the High Court.
- The request for liberty to file proceedings for quashing of cases was made in Special Civil Application No 13258 of 1994.
Also Read: Enforcement of Foreign Award: Case of Oscar Investments Limited and RHC Holding Private Limited
Analysis
- The appellant, who was a whistle blower and aggrieved person, challenged the directions issued by the High Court for prompt disposal of proceedings against him and his family members.
- The appellant had previously filed a Writ Petition in the Supreme Court which was dismissed as leave was granted in another case filed by him.
- The appellant alleged an illegal racket in Gujarat where arrest warrants were obtained illegally without following due process.
- Out of the 10 cases mentioned, 3 had already been disposed of by the magistrate and need not be reopened.
- The High Court remanded the remaining cases to the magistrate for further action based on the directions given, including initiating proceedings under Section 195 of the Indian Penal Code.
- After the filing of a special leave petition, seven cases from 1994 remained pending, out of which one was a summary suit and another a complaint case under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
- Various reports submitted to the High Court indicated that the cases against the appellant were false, with six cases resulting in illegal arrests of the appellant and his family members.
- The appellant should not be denied the right to question the initiation of criminal proceedings.
- The proceedings in the five mentioned cases shall remain stayed for a further period of six weeks.
- The appellant has the right to challenge criminal proceedings which he believes have been initiated illegally.
- The appellant’s claims of obtaining illegal arrest warrants through a pattern should be addressed.
- The sting operation and police reports reveal a pattern of illegal arrest warrants according to the appellant.
Also Read: NGOs Substantial Financing Case: Supreme Court’s Judgment on Public Authority Definition
Decision
- Notices to be first issued to the complainant/plaintiff in CC No 704 of 1994 and Summary Suit No. 67 of 1994.
- If complainant and plaintiff are interested in pursuing the complaint/suit, then notice to be issued to the appellant and/or his family members.
- Pending applications to stand disposed of.
- Appellant granted liberty to file proceedings before High Court for quashing criminal proceedings in mentioned cases.
- If plaintiff/complainant appears and notices are issued, trial court to dispose of both cases within six months of the appellant’s appearance.
Case Title: MANOHAR M. GALANI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT .
Case Number: C.A. No.-006396-006396 / 2012
