0

Supreme Court Decision: DGP Vindicated in High-Profile Legal Battle

Blog , , ,

Case Title – Sanjay Kundu vs. Registrar General, High Court of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.

Case No. – SLP (Crl.) No. 550-551 of 2024

Dated on – 12th January, 2024

Quorum – Hon’ble CJI Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Hon’ble Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Hon’ble Justice Manoj Misra

Facts of the case –

An email was sent by Nishant Kumar Sharma to the Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court. Sharma, a resident of Palampur, Kangra, alleged that he and his family were being threatened by “X,” a former IPS officer, and “Y,” a practicing advocate, to sell their shares in their company. Sharma’s family operates a hotel in Palampur, and “Y” is a relative who had invested in their company.

Sharma claimed that “Y” was pressuring him through “X” and using intimidation tactics, including threatening the company’s auditors and obstructing its functioning. He also alleged that he escaped an assault in Gurugram on August 25, 2023, and that he received phone calls from the office of Sanjay Kundu, the DGP of Himachal Pradesh, purportedly at “Y’s” behest. Sharma reported receiving a WhatsApp message from the SHO, Palampur, stating that Kundu wished to speak with him and insisted that he come to Shimla. Despite filing multiple criminal complaints, no FIR was initially registered. It was only after the High Court took suo motu cognizance of the email that an FIR was registered on November 16, 2023. The High Court, upon reviewing status reports, found prima facie evidence of abuse of power by Kundu and directed that he be transferred from his post to ensure a fair investigation.

Legal Provisions –

  • Section 34 of IPC, 1860
  • Section 323 of IPC, 1860
  • Section 506 of IPC, 1860

Contentions of the appellant –

The appellant, Sanjay Kundu, contended that the High Court’s order directing his transfer from the post of DGP, Himachal Pradesh, was issued without affording him an opportunity to be heard, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. Kundu argued that the proceedings were initiated suo motu based on an email from the complainant, Nishant Kumar Sharma, without impleading him as a party or notifying him of the allegations.

Kundu admitted to having requested the complainant to come to Shimla, which he justified as an attempt to mediate a civil dispute at the behest of “Y,” a senior advocate. He maintained that his actions were misconstrued and that his official role was being wrongly implicated in a private business dispute between the complainant and “Y.” Kundu further submitted that the High Court had improperly assumed disciplinary jurisdiction by directing his transfer without due process, thereby bypassing the established administrative control and disciplinary mechanisms governing his service.

Additionally, Kundu raised concerns about the impartiality of the investigation led by the SP, Shimla, citing prior conflicts related to a blast investigation in Shimla. He alleged that the SP, Shimla, had an adversarial stance against him due to his intervention in the blast investigation, which he claimed was mishandled by the SP. Kundu emphasized that the High Court’s reliance on status reports from potentially biased officers compromised the fairness of the proceedings. Consequently, he sought the recall of the High Court’s order and a fresh hearing where he could present his defense.

Contentions of the respondent –

The respondent, Nishant Kumar Sharma, contended that Sanjay Kundu, in his capacity as DGP of Himachal Pradesh, abused his official position to intimidate and coerce the complainant into settling a private business dispute with “Y,” a senior advocate and business associate. Sharma alleged that Kundu’s actions were not only unauthorized but also constituted a misuse of power, as evidenced by persistent surveillance, intimidation through frequent missed calls, and attempts to force him to meet in Shimla.

The respondent argued that the High Court’s intervention was necessary due to the severity and persistence of the threats, which included a physical assault and subsequent intimidation to withdraw criminal complaints. Sharma asserted that Kundu’s influence prevented the local police from acting on his complaints until the High Court’s intervention. The respondent supported the High Court’s decision to transfer Kundu to ensure a fair and unbiased investigation, emphasizing the prima facie evidence of Kundu’s involvement in the alleged intimidation.

Sharma further contended that Kundu’s request for a recall of the High Court’s order was baseless, as the need for an independent and impartial investigation justified the initial ex parte decision. He maintained that the investigation by the SP, Shimla, was conducted with due diligence and that Kundu’s allegations of bias were unfounded and aimed at diverting attention from the substantive issues. The respondent urged the Court to uphold the High Court’s directives, including the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the matter comprehensively.

 

Court Analysis and Judgement –

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India addressed the legality of the High Court’s order directing the transfer of Sanjay Kundu, the Director General of Police (DGP) of Himachal Pradesh, amidst allegations of abuse of power and interference in a private dispute. The Court acknowledged that the High Court’s initial order was issued ex parte without affording Kundu an opportunity to present his side, thereby violating principles of natural justice. It criticized the High Court’s assumption of disciplinary jurisdiction over Kundu, emphasizing that such decisions should have been subject to established administrative procedures and due process within the framework of service rules.

The Supreme Court highlighted the seriousness of the allegations against Kundu, including surveillance and intimidation tactics allegedly employed against Nishant Kumar Sharma, the complainant. However, the Court found that the High Court’s reliance on status reports from potentially biased officers, without proper scrutiny or opportunity for rebuttal by Kundu, compromised procedural fairness. The Court noted Kundu’s admission to contacting Sharma in the course of his duties but disputed the characterization of these actions as improper interference in a private matter.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order directing Kundu’s transfer from the post of DGP. It directed the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) comprising IG-level officers to conduct an impartial inquiry into the allegations against Kundu. The Court mandated that Kundu shall have no authority over this investigation to ensure its independence and impartiality. Additionally, the State Government was tasked with providing adequate security to Sharma and his family based on an assessment of threat perception. The judgment underscored the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to legal principles in disciplinary actions against public servants, while affirming the need for a thorough investigation into the allegations raised in the case.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Anurag Das

0

Supreme Court Mandates Hybrid Hearings for State Information Commissions: A Step Towards Digital Access to Justice.

Blog , , , ,

Kishan Chand Jain v. Union of India & Ors.

Case No.: Writ Petition No. 360 of 2021.

Court: Supreme Court of India.

Date: October 09, 2023.

Quorum: Hon’ble CJI.  D. Y. Chandrachud, J.  J.B. Pardiwala, J.  Manoj Mishra.

Facts of the Case:

In 2021, Kishan Chand Jain filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking directions for better functioning of State Information Commissions (SICs) under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. The petitioner argued that most SICs are located in state capitals and conduct only physical hearings, imposing prohibitive costs on applicants from remote areas.

Legal Issues:

  1. Whether SICs should provide virtual hearing options alongside physical hearings?
  2. Whether SICs should implement online filing systems for RTI appeals and complaints?
  3. Whether the current functioning of SICs aligns with the objectives of the RTI Act?

Legal Provisions:

Right to Information Act, 2005.

Section 15: Constitution of State Information Commissions.

Section 18: Powers and functions of Information Commissions.

Section 19: Appeal procedure.

Section 26: Development of programs by appropriate Government.

Arguments of the Petitioner

The learned counsel for petitioners aregued that virtual hearings would provide cost-effective access to information for applicants. Most SICs lack online filing facilities for RTI appeals and complaints, unlike the Central Information Commission (CIC). SICs should adopt user-friendly digital portals to enhance their effectiveness.

Arguments of the Respondents

The leraned counsel for respondents aregued that the responses varied among different state SICs. Some states (e.g., Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Haryana) had already adopted hybrid modes of hearing. Others (e.g., Sikkim, Goa) had not implemented virtual hearings. Some states (e.g., Uttar Pradesh) were not opposed to virtual hearings but had not yet implemented them.

Judgment and analysis

The Supreme Court issued the certain directives. All SICs must provide hybrid modes of hearing for complaints and appeals by December 31, 2023. SICs must implement e-filing systems for complaints and appeals by December 31, 2023. Central and State Ministries must compile email addresses of Public Information Officers within one month. The Department of Personnel and Training must convene a meeting of all Central and State Information Commissioners within one month to establish implementation modalities. State Governments must provide necessary funds for setting up virtual hearing infrastructure.

The judgment recognizes the right to information as a constitutional right, intertwined with Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 21. It emphasizes that access to Information Commissions is crucial for securing this right. The Court’s decision aligns with the broader push for digital access to justice, acknowledging that technology can democratize legal processes and expand access beyond physical limitations.

The directive for hybrid hearings and e-filing systems is a significant step towards making the RTI process more accessible and efficient. It addresses the geographical and financial barriers that often hinder citizens from remote areas from fully utilizing the RTI Act. However, the effectiveness of this judgment will depend on its implementation. Factors such as digital literacy, internet connectivity in remote areas, and the adaptability of SICs to new technologies will play crucial roles in realizing the intended benefits.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Kishan Chand Jain v. Union of India marks a progressive step towards digitizing and democratizing access to information. By mandating hybrid hearings and e-filing systems, the Court has attempted to bridge the gap between citizens and Information Commissions. This decision has the potential to significantly enhance the efficacy of the RTI Act, provided it is implemented effectively and uniformly across all states. As we move forward, it will be crucial to monitor the implementation of these directives and their impact on citizens’ ability to exercise their right to information.

Reviewed by Maria Therese Syriac.

PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.

0

Supreme Court quashed the entire proceeding of money recovery based on unethical transactions

Blog , ,

CASE TITLE- Deepak Kumar Shrivas & Anr. Appellant(S) Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.

CASE NUMBER- Criminal Appeal No. Of 2024 @ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9800 Of 2023

DATED ON- 19.02.2024

QUORUM- Hon’ble Justice Vikram Nath and Hon’ble Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

FACTS OF THE CASE

The appellant made a complaint alleging that the respondent no.6 had allured the appellant that she would secure a job for his brother as she had good contacts with higher officers and demanded substantial amount for doing this favour. The appellant paid Rs. 80,000/- cash at the first instance. Later on an additional demand was made and the appellant, he has deposited about Rs. 20,000/- and odd in different bank accounts. When no job was provided to his brother, he approached the respondent no.6 for returning the money paid by him upon which she threatened him of false implication and started avoiding him. The report made by superintendent of police showed that both the parties were accusing each other of having extracted money for securing job for their relatives. It appears that the appellant had taken about Rs.4 lacs from her for securing a job for her daughter and no job was provided by the appellant to her daughter moreover, the appellant and respondent failed to produce the relevant documents. The respondent filed an FIR against the appellant accordingly. The appellant filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Chhattisgarh for quashing the FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom. The said petition has since been dismissed by the impugned order giving rise to filing of the present appeal.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

No statute or legal provisions were referred before the court of law for reaching the ultimate decision.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that an enquiry was conducted in which similar allegations against each other were made by both the sides which were not found to be substantiated and, therefore, lodging of the impugned FIR after about one year of the said enquiry, is mala fide and an abuse of the process of law. Further, the impugned FIR has been maliciously lodged only to resist the appellant from recovering the amount paid by him to the respondent no.6. It is also submitted that the FIR has been after more than three years and, therefore, on the ground of delay, the alleged FIR deserves to be quashed.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

Learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that the investigation must be allowed to continue and if ultimately the police report is submitted finding the appellant prima facie guilty of the charge on the basis of the evidence collected during the investigation, the appellant would have adequate remedy of assailing the charge sheet and also claiming discharge at the stage of framing of charges. There is no justification for scuttling the investigation which may ultimately not only deprive the respondent no.6 of her money but also the offence committed by the appellant would go unpunished. It was also submitted that it was a clear case of cheating as the appellant had deceitfully induced the respondent no.6.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The court observed that, respondent no.6 was well aware of the complaint made by the appellant. Despite the same she did not lodge any complaint against the appellant and his brother and waited for more than a year to lodge the FIR. The entire material was totally an unlawful contract between the parties where money was being paid for securing a job. The police should exercise caution when drawn into dispute pertaining to such unethical transactions between private parties which need investigations. The criminal prosecution should not be allowed to continue where the object to lodge the FIR is not for criminal prosecution and for punishing the offender for the offence committed but for recovery of money under coercion pressure. Accordingly, the court set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court and quashed the entire proceedings.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed By- Shreyasi Ghatak

0

No Evidence, No Case: Supreme Court Quashes FIR in Marital Dispute.  

Blog, Supreme court , , , , ,

Abhishek Saxena v. State of Uttar Pradesh.

Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 3628 of 2023.

Court: Supreme Court of India.

Date: November 28, 2023.

Quorum: Hon’ble J.  C. T. Ravikumar, J.  Sanjay Kumar.

Facts of the Case

In the case of Abhishek Saxena v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the dispute arose from an FIR registered on September 4, 2016. The FIR was filed against Abhishek Saxena, his parents, and relatives, alleging offenses under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 363 (kidnapping), 384 (extortion), and 406 (criminal breach of trust) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The charges were filed by the complainant, who is the second respondent, following an incident that allegedly occurred on June 12, 2016. The complainant claimed that Saxena and his relatives had taken away her daughter and assaulted her when she inquired about her daughter’s whereabouts.

Legal Issues

  1. Whether the FIR and the subsequent chargesheet disclosed the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offenses under Sections 323, 384, and 406 of the IPC?
  2. Whether the High Court was justified in not exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to quash the FIR and the chargesheet?

Legal Provisions

  1. Indian Penal Code:
  • Section 323, IPC: Deals with punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.
  • Section 384, IPC: Defines punishment for extortion, requiring proof of intentionally putting a person in fear of injury and dishonestly inducing the person to deliver property or valuable security.
  • Section 406, IPC: Pertains to criminal breach of trust, necessitating proof of entrustment of property and its dishonest misappropriation or conversion for personal use.

Contentions of the Petitioner

The petitioner, Abhishek Saxena, contended that the chargesheet did not disclose any material evidence to substantiate the allegations of causing hurt, extortion, or criminal breach of trust. The complainant’s allegations were vague and lacked corroborative evidence, such as medical reports or documented injury claims. The FIR was filed with considerable delay, which was only after Saxena had filed a petition for the dissolution of marriage and for custody of the minor daughter under the Guardians & Wards Act.

Contentions of the Respondents

The respondents, primarily the complainant and the State of Uttar Pradesh, argued that the FIR and the chargesheet contained sufficient allegations to proceed with the prosecution. The delay in filing the FIR was justified due to the circumstances and the nature of the offenses. The High Court correctly declined to quash the proceedings at the preliminary stage.

Judgement and Analysis

The Supreme Court, after reviewing the materials on record, found that the allegations and the chargesheet did not disclose the essential ingredients required to constitute the offenses under Sections 323, 384, and 406, IPC. The Court noted that there was no material evidence to support the allegation of causing hurt, such as medical reports or treatment records. The ingredients necessary to constitute extortion and criminal breach of trust were absent in the chargesheet. The significant delay in filing the FIR and the lack of substantive evidence weakened the complainant’s case. Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed the FIR and the chargesheet, setting aside the order of the High Court, and allowed the appeal.

The judgement underscores the importance of substantiating allegations with concrete evidence before proceeding with criminal prosecution. It reflects the judiciary’s role in preventing the misuse of legal provisions for personal vendetta, particularly in marital disputes. The decision to quash the FIR and the chargesheet was primarily driven by the lack of essential evidence and the significant delay in filing the FIR, which appeared to be retaliatory following the petitioner’s legal actions concerning the dissolution of marriage and child custody.

Conclusion

The judgement in Abhishek Saxena v. State of Uttar Pradesh reaffirms the need for due diligence and robust evidence in criminal proceedings. It also highlights the judiciary’s vigilance in safeguarding individuals from baseless prosecutions, ensuring that the legal process is not weaponized for ulterior motives. This case serves as a critical reminder of the balance that courts must maintain between allowing legitimate legal grievances to be addressed and preventing harassment through frivolous litigation.

 

Judgement reviewed by Maria Therese Syriac.

Click here to read the Judgement. 

 

PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.

0

No Evidence, No Case: Supreme Court Quashes FIR in Marital Dispute.  

Blog, Supreme court , , , , ,

Abhishek Saxena v. State of Uttar Pradesh.

Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 3628 of 2023.

Court: Supreme Court of India.

Date: November 28, 2023.

Quorum: Hon’ble J.  C. T. Ravikumar, J.  Sanjay Kumar.

Facts of the Case

In the case of Abhishek Saxena v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the dispute arose from an FIR registered on September 4, 2016. The FIR was filed against Abhishek Saxena, his parents, and relatives, alleging offenses under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 363 (kidnapping), 384 (extortion), and 406 (criminal breach of trust) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The charges were filed by the complainant, who is the second respondent, following an incident that allegedly occurred on June 12, 2016. The complainant claimed that Saxena and his relatives had taken away her daughter and assaulted her when she inquired about her daughter’s whereabouts.

Legal Issues

  1. Whether the FIR and the subsequent chargesheet disclosed the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offenses under Sections 323, 384, and 406 of the IPC?
  2. Whether the High Court was justified in not exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to quash the FIR and the chargesheet?

Legal Provisions

  1. Indian Penal Code:
  • Section 323, IPC: Deals with punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.
  • Section 384, IPC: Defines punishment for extortion, requiring proof of intentionally putting a person in fear of injury and dishonestly inducing the person to deliver property or valuable security.
  • Section 406, IPC: Pertains to criminal breach of trust, necessitating proof of entrustment of property and its dishonest misappropriation or conversion for personal use.

Contentions of the Petitioner

The petitioner, Abhishek Saxena, contended that the chargesheet did not disclose any material evidence to substantiate the allegations of causing hurt, extortion, or criminal breach of trust. The complainant’s allegations were vague and lacked corroborative evidence, such as medical reports or documented injury claims. The FIR was filed with considerable delay, which was only after Saxena had filed a petition for the dissolution of marriage and for custody of the minor daughter under the Guardians & Wards Act.

 

Contentions of the Respondents

The respondents, primarily the complainant and the State of Uttar Pradesh, argued that the FIR and the chargesheet contained sufficient allegations to proceed with the prosecution. The delay in filing the FIR was justified due to the circumstances and the nature of the offenses. The High Court correctly declined to quash the proceedings at the preliminary stage.

Judgement and Analysis

The Supreme Court, after reviewing the materials on record, found that the allegations and the chargesheet did not disclose the essential ingredients required to constitute the offenses under Sections 323, 384, and 406, IPC. The Court noted that there was no material evidence to support the allegation of causing hurt, such as medical reports or treatment records. The ingredients necessary to constitute extortion and criminal breach of trust were absent in the chargesheet. The significant delay in filing the FIR and the lack of substantive evidence weakened the complainant’s case. Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed the FIR and the chargesheet, setting aside the order of the High Court, and allowed the appeal.

The judgement underscores the importance of substantiating allegations with concrete evidence before proceeding with criminal prosecution. It reflects the judiciary’s role in preventing the misuse of legal provisions for personal vendetta, particularly in marital disputes. The decision to quash the FIR and the chargesheet was primarily driven by the lack of essential evidence and the significant delay in filing the FIR, which appeared to be retaliatory following the petitioner’s legal actions concerning the dissolution of marriage and child custody.

Conclusion

The judgement in Abhishek Saxena v. State of Uttar Pradesh reaffirms the need for due diligence and robust evidence in criminal proceedings. It also highlights the judiciary’s vigilance in safeguarding individuals from baseless prosecutions, ensuring that the legal process is not weaponized for ulterior motives. This case serves as a critical reminder of the balance that courts must maintain between allowing legitimate legal grievances to be addressed and preventing harassment through frivolous litigation.

Judgement reviewed by Maria Therese Syriac.

Click here to read the Judgement. 

 

PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.

1 2 3 … 6