Supreme Court of India Judgements

46650 Judgements hosted as on 11/11/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Constitution

Clarification of order – Applicant cannot be permitted to seek clarification of the order by way of an intervention as the same is a matter to be considered by the concerned court, where the proceedings in respect of the applicant is pending.

Bysclaw

Apr 30, 2023

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

DIVISION BENCH

MUKUL AGARWAL AND OTHERS — Appellant

Vs.

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent

( Before : Krishna Murari and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. )

Miscellaneous Application No. 531 of 2023 With Interlocutory Application No. 69324, 69326 & 69341 of 2023 in Criminal Appeal No. 249 of 2020

Decided on : 26-04-2023

Clarification of order – Applicant cannot be permitted to seek clarification of the order by way of an intervention as the same is a matter to be considered by the concerned court, where the proceedings in respect of the applicant is pending.

Counsel for Appearing Parties

Mr. Sarthak Sachdev, Advocate, Mr. Aditya Jain, Advocate, Mr. Kedar Nath Tripathy, Advocate, for the Appellant; Ms. Ruchira Goel, Advocate, Mr. Yatish Mohan, Advocate, Mrs. Vinita Y Mohan, Advocate, Mr. Vinayak Mohan, Advocate, Mr. E. C. Vidya Sagar, Advocate, for the Respondent.

JUDGMENT

Krishna Murari, J. – This Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the applicant-Mukesh Maganlal Doshi, seeking clarification of the order dated 10.02.2020 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 249 of 2020. The said Miscellaneous Application is accompanied by an application seeking permission to file intervention for clarification and an application for intervention.

2. It is pertinent to point out at this stage itself that applicant was not a party in Criminal Appeal No. 249 of 2020, which was decided by order dated 10.02.2020, the clarification whereof is being sought by the applicant.

3. The facts as culled out in the application justifying seeking of the clarification by way of intervention in nutshell are as under:-

 

(i) A complaint was filed on 5th March, 2019 with the Police authorities at Mumbai pertaining to unauthorised sale of several units of building in favour of various persons by business associates of the complainant, which inter alia included sale of seven units to the present applicants group.

(ii) The complaint also levelled allegations against his business associates for obtaining fraudulent loans from bank.

(iii) On 19.03.2020, the complainant approached Central Bureau of Investigation (for short, CBI), raising the same grievance. Even though, an FIR dated 23.09.2020 was registered by the Police authorities qua business associates of the complainants and others for availing bank loan fraudulently, however, the CBI did not register any complaint in respect of the allegations of unauthorized sale of the units.

(iv) A Commercial Suit No. (L) 370 of 2020 was filed by the complainant in respect of the unauthorized sale of seven units of the building in favour of the applicant and his group. There was a compromise between the parties in the said suit which came to be decree by the jurisdictional High Court vide order dated 16.03.2021, on the basis of compromise between the parties. The compromise decree acknowledged that the applicants group was victim of fraud and after service of the notice of the suit, immovable property/value of the property in dispute was returned/refunded to the plaintiff/complainant.

(v) Thereafter, the Police authorities in Mumbai have filed a closure report under Section 157 of the Criminal Procedure Code, before the concerned Magistrate stating that no further investigation qua the applicant and his group was required.

 

4. However, in proceedings under PMLA[1] against the business associates of the complainant, the applicants group has been wrongly roped in and thus a clarification is sought in the judgment and order dated 10.02.2020 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 249 of 2020, wherein it was held that finding of the civil court makes substratum of the criminal complaint vanish against any person and the criminal proceedings qua him are liable to be quashed and it will be a complete abuse of process of law to allow such persons to be prosecuted.

 

[1] Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002

 

5. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that, in case, the law laid down by this Court in judgment dated 10.02.2020 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 249 of 2020 is not clarified to apply in the case of the present applicant, the same would result in multiplicity of proceedings and such a clarification would serve the ends of justice without causing prejudice to anyone.

6. We are not impressed by the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant.

7. It is no doubt correct that the judgment and order dated 10.02.2020 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 249 of 2020 has held that the findings recorded in the civil proceedings make substratum of a criminal complaint vanish and thus, any pending criminal proceedings against such persons are liable to be quashed and allowing prosecution in such a situation would amount to complete abuse of proceedings of law.

8. It goes without saying that the law laid down by this Court is binding on all under Article 141 of the Constitution of India but before applying the law, the court where the proceedings are pending is required to test the applicability of the law declared by this Court on the basis of the facts of a particular case.

9. Such a blanket declaration sought by the applicant by way of clarification of an order by way of intervention in proceedings to which he is totally alien is not liable to be allowed. It goes without saying that facts and circumstances of a particular case are required to be tested to find out whether the law declared by this Court is applicable to the said facts or not. We have no reason to doubt that the courts will not follow the binding law declared by this Court in case it is found that the same is applicable to the facts of a particular case.

10. In view of above, the applicant cannot be permitted to seek clarification of the order dated 10.02.2020 by way of an intervention as the same is a matter to be considered by the concerned court, where the proceedings in respect of the applicant is pending.

11. The application of the applicant for permission to file intervention is rejected and accordingly, the intervention and the application seeking clarification also stand dismissed.

12. The Miscellaneous Application stand disposed of accordingly.

By sclaw

Related Post

Constitution

Citizenship Act, 1955 — Section 6A — Special provisions as to citizenship of persons covered by the Assam Accord — The case involves the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955, which grants citizenship to certain migrants from Bangladesh to Assam —The main issues include whether Parliament had the legislative competence to enact Section 6A, and if Section 6A violates Articles 6, 7, 14, 29, and 355 of the Constitution — Petitioners argue that Section 6A is unconstitutional as it conflicts with Articles 6 and 7, adopts unreasonable cut-off dates, and violates Articles 14, 29, and 355 — Respondents contend that Section 6A is within Parliament’s legislative competence under Article 11 and does not violate the Constitution — The judgment addresses the legislative competence of Parliament, the reasonableness of cut-off dates, and the impact on Assamese cultural identity — The court examines the historical context of citizenship provisions, the legislative intent behind Section 6A, and the scope of judicial review under Article 14 — The court analyzes the constitutional provisions on citizenship, the legislative objective of Section 6A, and the balance between legislative intent and constitutional mandates —The court concludes that Section 6A of the Citizenship Act is constitutional and does not violate the cited Articles of the Constitution.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Constitution

Child Marriages — Restraint of — The petitioner, an NGO, argues that despite the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, child marriages remain prevalent in India —They seek stronger enforcement and support systems for child brides —The main issue is the failure of authorities to prevent child marriages and the need for effective guidelines and enforcement mechanisms — The petitioner highlights the high rate of child marriages, the ineffectiveness of Child Marriage Prohibition Officers (CMPOs), and the need for comprehensive support for child brides — The Union of India attributes child marriages to societal perceptions and economic pressures, and outlines various government programs aimed at reducing child marriages —The court acknowledges the persistence of child marriages and the need for stronger enforcement and support systems — The court emphasizes the socio-economic determinants of child marriage and the need for a multi-faceted approach to address the issue — The court refers to various laws and international conventions that recognize child marriage as a violation of human rights — The court calls for comprehensive measures, including legal enforcement, judicial measures, community involvement, awareness campaigns, and support systems for child brides.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Constitution

Citizenship Act, 1955 — Sections 5(1)(b) and 8(2) — Grant of Indian Citizenship — Respondent born in Singapore in 1999 to Indian parents who later renounced their Indian citizenship, applied to resume Indian citizenship in 2017 —Whether respondent is entitled to resume Indian citizenship under Section 8(2) and if he qualifies as a person of Indian origin under Section 5(1)(b) — Petitioner argued he is entitled to Indian citizenship based on his grandparents’ birth in undivided India and his parents’ birth in independent India — The Union of India contended that respondent’s parents lost Indian citizenship upon acquiring Singapore citizenship, making respondent ineligible under the cited sections — The Supreme Court ruled that respondent is not entitled to resume Indian citizenship under Section 8(2) or Section 5(1)(b) — The court found that respondent’s parents ceased to be Indian citizens by operation of law when they acquired Singapore citizenship, and thus Section 8(2) does not apply — The court emphasized the plain language of the Citizenship Act, stating that equitable considerations cannot override statutory provisions — The appeal by the Union of India was allowed — However respondent may apply for citizenship under Section 5(1)(f).

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw

Leave a Reply

You missed

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 376 and 313 — Rape — False promise of marriage — Physical relationship with the complainant under the false promise of marriage, leading to her pregnancy and subsequent abortions — Whether the FIR should be quashed based on the allegations and the delay in filing the complaint — The petitioner argued that the relationship was consensual and the delay in filing the FIR undermines the credibility of the allegations — The respondent claimed that the petitioner deceived her with a false promise of marriage, leading to non-consensual physical relations — The Supreme Court quashed the FIR, noting the long-term consensual relationship and the lack of prima facie evidence for rape under Section 376 IPC —The Court emphasized the delay in filing the FIR and the nature of the relationship, which appeared consensual —The Court referred to previous judgments, highlighting the importance of prima facie evidence and the misuse of legal provisions —The FIR and all proceedings based on it were quashed, preventing abuse of the legal process.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B —Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) — Financial misconduct and conspiracy — Whether the High Court was correct in discharging the respondent from the charges of conspiracy and financial misconduct — The CBI argued that the High Court conducted a mini-trial at the charge-framing stage and that there was sufficient suspicion to frame charges against the respondent — The respondent’s counsel argued that the material in the charge sheet did not make out a case against the respondent and that the High Court rightly discharged him —The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to discharge the respondent, stating that mere suspicion was not enough to frame charges – The Court found that the respondent’s role was limited to signing the memorandum prepared by senior officers and participating in the Management Committee meeting, which approved the proposal — The Court emphasized that the proposal had passed through various committees and that the respondent’s actions did not amount to criminal misconduct — The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was discharged from the charges — The trial against other accused persons will continue.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Municipal Laws

Patna Municipal Corporation Act, 1951 — Sections 146, 423 and 488(1) — The Patna Municipal Corporation imposed a royalty on advertisements, which was later increased — The respondents challenged this imposition, arguing it was a tax without legislative backing — Whether the royalty imposed by the Corporation was a tax and if it was legally enforceable without legislative sanction — The Corporation argued that the royalty was agreed upon by the parties and was not a tax — They contended that the enhancement of the rate was within their rights — The respondents argued that the imposition was a tax, which required legislative sanction, and the Corporation had no authority to levy it — The Division Bench quashed the enhancement, ruling that the Corporation had no power to impose the tax without legislative backing — The Court found that the royalty was not a tax but a fee agreed upon by the parties — It held that the Corporation’s actions were within the scope of the agreement — The Court distinguished between royalty and tax, emphasizing that royalty is based on an agreement, not statutory provision — The Court upheld the imposition of royalty as per the agreement but noted that the enhancement in rates was not challenged effectively — The judgment of the Division Bench was set aside.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Constitution

Citizenship Act, 1955 — Section 6A — Special provisions as to citizenship of persons covered by the Assam Accord — The case involves the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955, which grants citizenship to certain migrants from Bangladesh to Assam —The main issues include whether Parliament had the legislative competence to enact Section 6A, and if Section 6A violates Articles 6, 7, 14, 29, and 355 of the Constitution — Petitioners argue that Section 6A is unconstitutional as it conflicts with Articles 6 and 7, adopts unreasonable cut-off dates, and violates Articles 14, 29, and 355 — Respondents contend that Section 6A is within Parliament’s legislative competence under Article 11 and does not violate the Constitution — The judgment addresses the legislative competence of Parliament, the reasonableness of cut-off dates, and the impact on Assamese cultural identity — The court examines the historical context of citizenship provisions, the legislative intent behind Section 6A, and the scope of judicial review under Article 14 — The court analyzes the constitutional provisions on citizenship, the legislative objective of Section 6A, and the balance between legislative intent and constitutional mandates —The court concludes that Section 6A of the Citizenship Act is constitutional and does not violate the cited Articles of the Constitution.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw