High Court of Delhi was dealing with petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of criminal proceedings against the Petitioner pending before Ld. Special Judge, arising out of FIR under Section 120B read with Sections 420/468/471 of the IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(D) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Brief Facts:
Some unknown officials from Ministry of Health and Family Welfare had entered into a criminal conspiracy with the Chairman of Rohilkhand Medical College for the renewal of permission for admission of 100 MBBS students, despite gross violations of Medical Council of India regulations, as per which renewal of permission is granted by the Union Government. The inspections conducted by MCI revealed that the prescribed norms were not being met. The EC recommended the Union Government to not renew permission for admission of 3rd batch of 100 students. Aggrieved by the decision, the College approached the Supreme Court, wherein SC observed that the facilities were inadequate even for the purpose of a reduced intake of students, and therefore, permission could not be given. However, the MoHFW granted renewal for admission of a 3rd batch of 100 students, stating that an inspection had been conducted by a Central Team who had noted that adequate facilities were available at the College.
There was videography of the inspection conducted that had not been made part of the chargesheet, a direction was given to the Ld. Trial Court to hear the parties on merit afresh after duly supplying the copy of the videography allegedly seized by the CBI to all the accused persons. MoHFW also informed that no CD/Cassette of videography was available in their file/record. CBI intended to file an application for modification of judgement with regard to the Court’s observation on the importance of the videography on the ground that it had not been confirmed and established whether videography was carried out. This application of the CBI before this Court was dismissed on ground of the bar under Section 362 Cr.P.C. The Petitioner has now approached this Court by way of a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated against him.
Petitioner’s Contention:
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the condition that was stated in the Order was that there was a videography of the inspection and that the same had to be provided to the accused before the matter being considered afresh. It was submitted that as per the Affidavit filed by the CBI, no such videography is available and that even if, for arguendo purposes, such a videography exists, the same is not relevant as the alleged incident. It was submitted that the CBI had failed to verify the records pertaining to the existence of the videography. He submitted that the Court had erroneously set aside the discharge of the Petitioner herein as well on the mistaken ground that the inspection had been videographed. He argued that the Petitioner herein is entitled to be discharged on the same findings of the Ld. Trial Court that have been recorded in Order and the only reason the said Order had been set aside was because the CBI had not specifically denied the existence of such videography. He submitted that it would be a miscarriage of justice if the Petitioner herein is not granted the benefit of the findings in Order for the purpose of quashing of the criminal proceedings against him.
Respondent’s Contention:
Learned SPP appearing for CBI, submitted that the arguments pertaining to the role of the Petitioner herein had been duly discussed during the hearing, and therefore, it could not be said that the remand order was conditional and limited to Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 only. It was submitted that SLP preferred by the Petitioner against Judgement before the Supreme Court had been dismissed. Further, the application for modification filed by the CBI before this Court had also been dismissed. He submitted that the instant petition should not be entertained in view of the above. He informed the Court that the CBI intends to file a petition against the Order in wake of the information that has come to light with regard to the existence of videography of the inspection.
HC’s Observations:
The question before the Court was whether the Court can render an order under Section 482 Cr.P.C. that will override the bar instituted under Section 362 Cr.P.C.
Court stated that a plain reading of Section 482 Cr.P.C. showcases that nothing in the Cr.P.C. shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court. However, the embargo that lies under Section 362 Cr.P.C. which prohibits a Court from altering or reviewing its judgement or final order disposing of a case, except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error, applies to Section 482 Cr.P.C. as well. The Supreme Court has time and again held that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be invoked to override the bar of review under Section 362 Cr.P.C. The inherent power of the Court cannot be exercised for doing something that is specifically prohibited by the Cr.P.C. as doing so would be a violation of the law laid down by the Parliament and the precedents of the Supreme Court.
Court stated that while it is true that Section 482 Cr.P.C. does confer wide powers to the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Cr.P.C. or to prevent the abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, but the expressions “abuse of the process of law” or “to secure the ends of justice” do not confer unlimited jurisdiction on the High Court. Court also observed that the alleged abuse of the process of law or the ends of justice can only be secured in accordance with law and not otherwise.
Court stated that in the instant case, the same bar under Section 362 Cr.P.C. is applicable and cannot be overridden by Section 482 Cr.P.C. Court opined that if any order is passed in consequence to this prayer, it would invariably amount to review which is barred under Section 362 Cr.P.C. and is not permissible even under the inherent power possessed by this Court. The provisions under Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot be invoked to set aside the judgment and the revision of the CBI cannot be dismissed.
HC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the Court held that “The aforementioned material that has been scrutinised carefully by this Court gives impetus to the suspicion that the videography in question has either been misplaced or it has been deliberately inoculated from scrutiny. In both the cases it is investigating agency that has to take the blame. The statement made by the Section Officer and the affidavit indicates that videography was conducted. Even if the video is missing, the notes which should have been taken at the time when the videography was conducted would be present, but the notes have also not been taken into custody by the CBI. This Court is of the view that there is a probability of foul play in the case. In light of this, this Court deems it proper to direct for the constitution of a High-Level Committee by the CBI to conduct a probe into the existence of the videography of the inspection.”
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subramonium Prasad
Case Title: Dr. Sanjeev Kumar Rasania v. CBI & Ors.
Case Details: CRL.M.C. 878/2021 & CRL.M.A. 4402/2021
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :