LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a person who exposed an illegal racket of obtaining arrest warrants can be denied the right to challenge the criminal proceedings initiated against them as a result of the racket.
CASE TYPE: Criminal
Case Name: Manohar M. Galani vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.
Judgment Date: May 08, 2019
Date of the Judgment: May 08, 2019
Citation: [Not Available in Source]
Judges: Deepak Gupta, J., Sanjiv Khanna, J.
Can a person be denied the right to challenge criminal proceedings if they were the whistleblower exposing an illegal racket? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a case where a man, after being a victim of an illegal arrest warrant scheme, exposed the racket. The court considered whether the person should be allowed to challenge the criminal proceedings initiated against him. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench of Justices Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna.
Case Background
The appellant’s sister operated a firm named M/s. Jubilee Capital Market Services, which dealt with the sale and purchase of shares and other financial services. The appellant, who was employed at Punjab National Bank, assisted his sister in the firm. In March 1992, Mr. Kishore K. Keswani started investing in shares through this firm. Due to a market crash in 1993, Mr. Keswani suffered losses of approximately ₹13 lakhs. He blamed the appellant for his losses and filed ten cases against the appellant and his family members. Six of these cases resulted in arrest warrants and the illegal arrest of the appellant and his family.
The appellant alleged that there was an illegal racket in Gujarat involving lawyers and court officials who were procuring arrest warrants without following the due process of law. The appellant informed a journalist, Mr. Mahatre, about his arrest. Mr. Mahatre conducted a sting operation, filed a complaint, and obtained arrest warrants against a sitting Judge of the Bombay High Court, the Home Minister of Maharashtra, three Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs), a spokesperson of a national party, and a journalist. Mr. Mahatre then lodged these warrants with the police to expose the scandal. The appellant claimed that the sting operation was carried out at his instance. The matter was widely publicized, leading to a police investigation. The Sessions Court, Nadiad, took suo motu notice, quashed the warrants issued by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Dakor, and transferred the case to JMFC, Nadiad.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| March 1992 | Mr. Kishore K. Keswani started investing through M/s. Jubilee Capital Market Services. |
| 1993 | Share market crashed, leading to losses for investors, including Mr. Keswani. |
| 1993-1994 | Mr. Keswani filed 10 cases against the appellant and his family members. |
| 1994 | Arrest warrants were issued in six criminal cases, leading to the illegal arrest of the appellant and his family. |
| [Date not specified] | The appellant informed Mr. Mahatre about the illegal arrests. |
| [Date not specified] | Mr. Mahatre conducted a sting operation and obtained arrest warrants against high-profile individuals. |
| [Date not specified] | Mr. Mahatre lodged the warrants with the police to expose the scandal. |
| [Date not specified] | Sessions Court, Nadiad, took suo motu notice, quashed the warrants, and transferred the case. |
| 15th/20th/21st and 22nd September, 2004 | The High Court disposed of the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) with various directions. |
| [Date not specified] | The appellant filed a Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 150 of 2006 in the Supreme Court, which was dismissed. |
Course of Proceedings
A public interest litigation (PIL) was filed in the High Court by Shri Ajit D. Padiwal, an advocate, who later died. The High Court continued the proceedings, appointing an amicus curiae to assist the court. The appellant also intervened in the matter. Criminal proceedings were initiated against four persons before the Dakor Court. The High Court disposed of the writ petition on 15th/20th/21st and 22nd September 2004, issuing several directions. The appellant challenged only the direction that all ten proceedings against him and his family be disposed of at the earliest.
Legal Framework
The judgment refers to Section 195 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
which deals with giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction of an offence punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment. The court also refers to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
which deals with dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account.
Arguments
The appellant argued that the cases filed against him were false. He pointed out that police reports submitted to the High Court indicated that in many cases, the complainants were non-existent or denied filing the cases. The appellant contended that he was a whistleblower and should have the right to challenge the criminal proceedings against him. The appellant also submitted that the sting operation and police reports revealed a pattern of obtaining illegal arrest warrants.
The appellant’s counsel admitted that there was no prayer for quashing of the proceedings in the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before the High Court, and only an intervention application had been filed.
The High Court did not grant the relief of quashing the proceedings, as there was no specific application for the same. However, the High Court noted that three of the ten cases had already been disposed of. The High Court remanded the remaining cases to the magistrate courts for further action, including initiating proceedings under Section 195 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The Supreme Court noted that after the special leave petition was filed, the proceedings were stayed. As a result, seven cases filed in 1994 were still pending. The appellant’s counsel requested permission to file proceedings for quashing these cases, considering the police reports submitted to the High Court.
| Main Submissions | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s Submissions |
|
| High Court’s Observations |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues but considered the following:
- Whether the appellant should be allowed to challenge the criminal proceedings against him, considering his role as a whistleblower.
- Whether the High Court was correct in not quashing the proceedings due to the absence of a specific application for the same.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the appellant should be allowed to challenge the criminal proceedings? | The Court held that the appellant, as a whistleblower and an aggrieved party, should not be denied the right to question the initiation of criminal proceedings against him. |
| Whether the High Court was correct in not quashing the proceedings? | The Court acknowledged that the High Court was justified in not quashing the proceedings in the absence of a specific application. However, it granted the appellant the liberty to file appropriate proceedings before the High Court for quashing the criminal proceedings. |
Authorities
The judgment does not explicitly cite any case laws or books.
| Authority | How it was considered by the Court |
|---|---|
| Section 195 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 | The High Court had directed the magistrate courts to initiate proceedings under this section. |
| Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 | One of the pending cases was under this section. |
Judgment
| Submission by the Parties | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| The appellant’s submission that cases are false and he should be allowed to challenge them. | The Court agreed with the appellant’s submission and granted him liberty to file proceedings for quashing the cases. |
| The appellant’s counsel admitted that there was no prayer for quashing of the proceedings in the PIL. | The Court acknowledged this and stated that the High Court was justified in not granting the relief in the absence of specific prayer. |
Authorities:
The court did not cite any authorities in the judgment.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the fact that the appellant was a whistleblower who had exposed an illegal racket. The court recognized that the appellant was an aggrieved party who had been subjected to illegal arrest warrants. The court felt that the appellant should not be denied the right to challenge the criminal proceedings initiated against him, especially given the evidence of false cases and illegal practices.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Whistleblower Status | 40% |
| Aggrieved Party | 30% |
| Evidence of False Cases | 20% |
| Illegal Practices | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
Appellant exposed illegal arrest warrant racket
Criminal cases filed against Appellant
Appellant seeks to quash cases
Supreme Court allows Appellant to challenge cases
The Court’s reasoning was that since the appellant was a whistleblower and an aggrieved party, he should be given the opportunity to challenge the criminal proceedings. The Court also noted that the High Court was correct in not quashing the proceedings due to the absence of a specific application. However, the Supreme Court granted the appellant liberty to file appropriate proceedings before the High Court for quashing the criminal proceedings.
The court stated, “Though the appellant may not have made specific prayer for quashing of the proceedings, we cannot lose sight of the fact that he was the whistle blower and an aggrieved person.”
The court further observed, “He has the right to challenge such criminal proceedings which, according to him, have been initiated in total violation of law.”
The court also noted, “According to the appellant, the sting operation and various police reports filed before the High Court reveal a pattern of obtaining illegal arrest warrants.”
Key Takeaways
- A whistleblower who is also an aggrieved party has the right to challenge criminal proceedings initiated against them.
- The absence of a specific prayer for quashing proceedings in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) may prevent the High Court from granting such relief.
- The Supreme Court may grant liberty to file fresh proceedings for quashing criminal cases, even if such relief was not specifically sought earlier.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that:
- The proceedings in the five criminal cases mentioned in the judgment shall remain stayed for a further period of six weeks.
- The appellant is granted liberty to file appropriate proceedings before the High Court for quashing the criminal proceedings in the five cases.
- With regard to CC No. 704 of 1994 and Summary Suit No. 67 of 1994, the concerned courts should first issue notices to the complainant/plaintiff. Only if the complainant and the plaintiff appear and are interested in pursuing the complaint/suit, will notice be issued to the appellant and/or his family members.
- If the plaintiff/complainant appears and notices are issued, the trial court shall make an effort to dispose of these two cases at the earliest, and in any case, not later than six months from the date when the appellant puts in an appearance.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of the case is that a whistleblower who is also an aggrieved party cannot be denied the right to challenge criminal proceedings initiated against them. This judgment clarifies that even if a specific prayer for quashing proceedings is not made in a PIL, the court can grant liberty to file fresh proceedings for such relief, especially when there is evidence of abuse of the legal process. This case does not overrule any previous position of law but rather reinforces the rights of whistleblowers and aggrieved parties.
Conclusion
In the case of Manohar M. Galani vs. State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court held that a person who exposed an illegal racket of obtaining arrest warrants should not be denied the right to challenge the criminal proceedings initiated against them. The court granted the appellant liberty to file proceedings for quashing the criminal cases. The court also directed that in two other cases, the concerned courts should first issue notices to the complainant/plaintiff and proceed only if they are interested in pursuing the matter. This judgment underscores the importance of protecting whistleblowers and ensuring that they have the right to challenge legal proceedings that may have been initiated as a result of their actions in exposing wrongdoing.