The division judge bench of Justice S.Abdul Nazeer and Justice V. Ramasubramanian of the supreme court of India in the case of P. Dharamaraj V Shanmugam & Ors held that corruption by a public servant is an offense against the State and the society at large. The Court cannot deal with cases involving abuse of official position and adoption of corrupt practices, like suits for specific performance, where the refund of the money paid may also satisfy the agreement holder.
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case is that an announcement was made regarding vacancies existing for the post of construction and driver in the transport department. The amount was given to the brother of the minister and had assured that all who have paid amounts would be issued with appointment orders. After that in the list of appointments, the names of the person who had given the money were not there in the lists. The K. Arulmani, who is working in the technical wing of the factory of the Metropolitan Transport Corporation of Tamil Nadu filed the complaint and the FIR was for alleged offenses under Sections 405, 420, and 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code Four persons by name Shri Senthil Balaji (the then Transport Minister), Shri Ashok Kumar (the brother of the Minister), Shri Shanmugam (Personal Assistant to the Minister) and Shri Raj Kumar were cited as the accused in the FIR. After that, the minister’s assistant filed the petition before the high court under section 482 CRPC praying for quashing the criminal complaint. Before the High Court, the de facto complainant, Shri K. Arulmani, filed an affidavit supporting the accused and praying for the quashing of the final report, arguing that what the victims had with the accused was only a money dispute that had been settled out of Court, and that due to political rivalry between two groups, his complaint was elevated to a more serious level by including unwarranted state allegations.
Thereafter, the high court come up to the conclusion and held that with the passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and that no useful purpose would be achieved by keeping the criminal case pending. Furthermore, a person who participated in the selection process for appointment to the post of drivers/conductors in the Metropolitan Transport Corporation but was not selected has filed a special leave petition claiming that what occurred was a cash for job scam and that he would have been selected if the scam had not occurred. Since he was not a party to the quash proceedings before the High Court, his special leave petition was accompanied by an application for leave to file Special Leave Petition. The said application was allowed by this Court. In the meantime, an organization by name Anti- Corruption Movement, moved a Miscellaneous Petition before the High Court seeking recall of the order on the ground that the complaint involved allegations of corruption and abuse of official position and that therefore the chargesheet could not have been quashed on the basis of a compromise between the parties. This application for recall was rejected by the High Court, primarily on the ground that this Court has already entertained a special leave petition against the order sought to be recalled. Therefore, they came up with the two special leave petitions.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that it is shocking to see that in a matter of this nature, where the bribegiver and bribetaker have come together, has been allowed to be closed on the basis of a compromise memo; It was further argued that the high court has committed a grave error in quashing the complaint on the basis of compromise, even though the offenses are non-compoundable
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the anti-corruption has contended that the prosecution is guilty of not including in the charge sheet the offense under the P.C Act and that even the opportunity now available to the Court under Section 216 of the Cr.P.C. is nipped in the bud by the High Court allowing a compromise and quashing the complaint.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent contended that they supported the decision of the high court and stated that the statements made by the victim did not make out a case for prosecution of the accused under the pc act. Further, the prosecution included only section 409 IPC because the statement was made through the personal assistant of the minister
The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Shri Arumali contended that the allegations made in the complaint did not make out a case for prosecution under the P.C Act; that the affidavits filed by all the so-called victims before the High Court made it crystal clear that it was a simple money dispute; and that the allegations made against the accused did not constitute offenses against the State but revolved around a private dispute with respect to regard. The counsel also cited the decision Sanjay Tiwari v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another.
The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the A-1 contended that there is no locus standi to interfere with the proceedings initiated by the individual complainants. Further, the counsel contended that the appellants have taken cudgels on behalf of political rivals to undo a compromise reached between a few individual complainants and persons who received money from them; that the parameters laid down by this Court for closing criminal cases on the basis of a compromise reached between parties, even in the case of noncompoundable offences, have been followed properly by the High Court in this case; and that since allegations of corruption have been made, the High Court has acted properly. According to the learned senior counsel for A1, the appellants are heavily relying on other cases filed under the P.C Act to overturn a compromise reached in a case that does not involve allegations under the P.C Act.
COURT’S OBSERVATION
The hon’ble court considered three important issues and the following issues are
- LOCUS STANDI
The hon’ble court stated that the preliminary objection made by the respondents to the locus standi of the appellants has to be rejected outright, for several reasons. It is further cleared from the counter affidavit that the persons who claim to have paid money but did not receive orders of appointment, were not the only victims. Persons who were more meritorious, but who did not get selected, on account of being edged out by candidates who paid money and got selected, are also victims of the alleged corrupt practices if those allegations are eventually proved.
We cannot shy away from the fact that candidates, who are selected and appointed to posts in the Government/public corporations by adopting corrupt practices, are eventually called upon to render public service. It is needless to say that the quality
of public service rendered by such persons will be inversely proportionate to the corrupt practices adopted by them. Therefore, the public, who are recipients of these services, also become victims, though indirectly, because the consequences of such appointments get reflected sooner or later in the work performed by the appointees. Hence, to say that the appellants have no locus standi is to deny the existence of what is obvious.
The hon’ble court relied upon the judgment titled P.S.R. Sadhanantham vs. Arunachalam and Another to consider the question of Locus standi.
Therefore, the hon’ble court held that the objection about the locus standi of the appellants is without any merit. In any case, the appellant in one of these appeals, is a victim, as he could not get selected on account of the alleged corrupt practices. Therefore, the contention regarding the locus standi of the appellants is to be rejected.
- THE EFFECT OF COMPROMISE AND THE NON-INCLUSION OF THE OFFENSES UNDER THE P.C. ACT
it is clear that the final report implicated the accused for offenses under Sections 406, 409, 420, and 506(1) IPC. None of these offenses except the one under Section 506 IPC is compoundable under subSection (1) of Section 320, Cr.P.C. The offenses under Sections 406 and 420 are compoundable under sub-Section (2) of Section 320.
Subsection (9) of Section 320 makes it clear that no offense shall be compounded except as provided by the Section. Therefore, there was no way the offense under Section 409 IPC, included in the final report, could have been compounded.
The hon’ble apex court held that s it is clear that the Court has to go slow even while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.PC or Article 226 of the Constitution in the matter of quashing criminal proceedings on the basis of a settlement reached between the parties when the offenses are capable of having an impact not
merely on the complainant and the accused but also on others.
As seen from the final report filed in this case and the counter affidavit filed by the I.O., persons who have adopted corrupt practices to secure employment in the Transport Corporation fall under two categories namely, (i) those who paid money and got orders of appointment; and (ii) those who paid money but failed to
secure employment. If persons belonging to the 2nd category are allowed to settle their dispute by taking a refund of money, the same would affix a seal of approval on the appointment of persons belonging to the 1st category. Therefore, the High Court ought not to have quashed the criminal proceedings on the basis of the compromise.
Further, it is needless to point out that corruption by a public servant is an offense against the State and society at large. The Court cannot deal with cases involving abuse of official position and adoption of corrupt practices, like suits for specific performance, where the refund of the money paid may also satisfy the agreement holder. Therefore, we hold that the High Court was completely in error in quashing the criminal complaint
- THE NON-INCLUSION IN THE CHARGE SHEET OF THE OFFENSES UNDER THE P.C. ACT
The hon’ble court rejected the argument that there is nothing on record to show
that Shri Shanmugam was appointed as P.A. to the Minister. Further, the contention made on behalf of the respondents there are two other cases where allegations of corruption are made and with which the court is concerned now, did not involve allegations of corruption. But the said contention is abhorring, for the simple reason that all criminal complaints arose out of the very same cashforjob scam. We are informed that the proceedings in respect of those two cases have also been stayed by
the High Court. We do not know how the High Court could have stayed the prosecution of a person under the P.C. Act, especially in matters of this nature.
The hon’ble court stated that the State ought to have undertaken a comprehensive investigation into the entire scam, without allowing the accused to fish out one case as if it was a private money dispute.
At last, the hon’ble court held that the impugned order of the high court is wholly unsustainable.
CASE NAME- P. Dharamaraj V Shanmugam & Ors
CITATION- CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1514 OF 2022
DATED-08.09.22
CORUM- Justice S.Abdul Nazeer and Justice V. Ramasubramanian
Picture Source :