RAJIB RANJAN Vs. R. VIJAYKUMAR
LAWS(SC)-2014-10-27
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on October 14,2014

RAJIB RANJAN Appellant
VERSUS
R. Vijaykumar Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

VENKATA SARVEASAM SASTRY TEJOMURTY VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ORS. [LAWS(CHH)-2015-5-22] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRAPAL SINGH VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2023-11-74] [REFERRED TO]
MANINDERSINGH JOLLY VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2016-9-34] [REFERRED]
ROSHANKUMAR DANIELBHAI DESAI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2017-8-2] [REFERRED TO]
VASUMATIBEN KANTILAL KANSARA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2017-4-281] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH CHANDRA VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-4-105] [REFERRED TO]
SAINATH S/O RAMRAO THOMBRE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH IN-CHARGE WASHI POLICE STATION, TQ WASHI, DISTRICT OSMANABAD [LAWS(BOM)-2017-10-122] [REFERRED TO]
SOM NATH BANERJEE VS. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER [LAWS(JHAR)-2014-12-130] [REFERRED TO]
E.K.RAVEENDRANATHAN NAIR VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2020-11-149] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAYA LAKSHMI PATIL VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2019-2-435] [REFERRED TO]
SHILPA JAIN AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2016-1-78] [REFERRED]
A.K. SHARMA VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2015-8-119] [REFERRED TO]
T. P. MUNNINARAYANAPPA VS. STATE BY KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2023-3-538] [REFERRED TO]
PRAVEEN G. N. VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2023-5-320] [REFERRED TO]
G.V.ANNA RAO VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2022-3-43] [REFERRED TO]
K.S. SUBBA RAO VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2022-4-112] [REFERRED TO]
SRIRAM BHADRAIAH VS. JOGIPARTHY VENKATESH GUPTA [LAWS(TLNG)-2021-6-2] [REFERRED TO]
ANOOP SINGH VS. HANUMAN SINGH [LAWS(MPH)-2019-8-21] [REFERRED TO]
KUMAR SINGH @ SHEO KUMAR SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2018-1-73] [REFERRED TO]
SUSIL KUMAR PATTNAIK VS. STATE OF ODISHA (VIGILANCE) [LAWS(ORI)-2021-1-32] [REFERRED TO]
K.O.JOSE VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2020-12-132] [REFERRED TO]
USHA MASSAND AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ANOTHER [LAWS(HPH)-2016-5-252] [REFERRED TO]
SHAHRUKH KHAN AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2018-3-490] [REFERRED TO]
R. PRAKASH AND ORS. VS. STATE AND ORS. [LAWS(KAR)-2015-9-99] [REFERRED TO]
D.ROOPA VS. H.N.SATHYANARAYANA RAO [LAWS(KAR)-2022-6-1451] [REFERRED TO]
SUBHASH CHANDRA NANDI VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2016-8-41] [REFERRED TO]
VINOD GOEL AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-1-144] [REFERRED TO]
GOPAL SINGH BISHT VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(DLH)-2019-1-366] [REFERRED TO]
BHAWAN SINGH GARBYAL VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-6-174] [REFERRED TO]
HARESHBHAI JAYANTILAL THAKKAR VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2017-6-41] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISHBHAI SAVAILAL PATEL AND 3 VS. RAHUL VITTALBHAI PADHIYAR AND 1 [LAWS(GJH)-2017-4-433] [REFERRED TO]
ABHINAV KHARE VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2023-5-195] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. RITESH MILAPCHAND JAIN [LAWS(KAR)-2022-9-218] [REFERRED TO]
KISAN BALIRAM RATHOD VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2023-7-648] [REFERRED TO]
PIYEJA MOHANBHAI MAGANBHAI AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER [LAWS(GJH)-2017-5-165] [REFERRED TO]
S. BALA KRISHNA VS. THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND ORS. [LAWS(APH)-2016-1-41] [REFERRED TO]
CH LAXMINARAYANA VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(APH)-2017-6-67] [REFERRED TO]
RABINDRA KUMAR MALLICK VS. STATE OF ORISSA (VIG ) [LAWS(ORI)-2019-3-36] [REFERRED TO]
AJIT SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2016-2-94] [REFERRED TO]
SHIVA BHADORIYA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2022-9-59] [REFERRED TO]
KANODIA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. AND ORS. VS. STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2015-9-1] [REFERRED TO]
SAJ VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2016-7-198] [REFERRED TO]
DEVIDAS GARG AND ORS. VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. [LAWS(KAR)-2015-11-15] [REFERRED TO]
GIRISH KUMAR VS. KRISHNAPPA P.S. [LAWS(KAR)-2021-2-113] [REFERRED TO]
DILIPKUMAR DANABHAI RATHOD VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2021-12-114] [REFERRED TO]
MOHINDER SINGH GUPTA AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ANOTHER [LAWS(HPH)-2016-8-330] [REFERRED TO]
MARNYA ETE VS. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(GAU)-2021-11-91] [REFERRED TO]
KANHAIYA LAL SARASWAT VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-6-14] [REFERRED TO]
K. RATNA PRABHA VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(APH)-2017-6-42] [REFERRED TO]
ALKA UDHAVKHAIRE AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER [LAWS(BOM)-2017-4-126] [REFERRED TO]
OMPRAKASH DADAPPA KOYATE & ORS. VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2017-5-104] [REFERRED TO]
INDU DALMIA AND ORS. VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. [LAWS(APH)-2015-9-1] [REFERRED TO]
C. RUSHENDRA BABU VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2021-5-10] [REFERRED TO]
PANKAJ DAS VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2021-11-97] [REFERRED TO]
SHIVLAL POPATLAL BHIDA AND 5 ORS. VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND 1 ANR. [LAWS(GJH)-2016-4-373] [REFERRED TO]
HARJIT SINGH VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-10-112] [REFERRED TO]
MADHUSUDAN DASH VS. STATE OF ODISHA [LAWS(ORI)-2019-4-58] [REFERRED TO]
RAHUL MATHUR VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2017-1-123] [REFERRED TO]
DAYANAND VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2021-8-58] [REFERRED TO]
M. PARVIN VS. DIRECTORATE OF VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION [LAWS(MAD)-2022-11-312] [REFERRED TO]
BAWA MASALA COMPANY VS. P. A. ASSOCIATES [LAWS(GAU)-2020-10-13] [REFERRED TO]
SUN PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(APH)-2016-4-47] [REFERRED TO]
PATEL DEVABHAI RAMABHAI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2017-7-123] [REFERRED TO]
SATYA NARAYAN KEJRIWAL VS. GAJRAJ SURANA [LAWS(GAU)-2018-10-71] [REFERRED TO]
K. NANJUDAN VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2020-8-6] [REFERRED TO]
H.S. CHELUVARAJU AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. [LAWS(KAR)-2015-5-9] [REFERRED TO]
PRADNYA W/O PRADEEP PATIL @ BHUYEKAR, VS. PRASHANT S/O SUBHASH KAMAT [LAWS(KAR)-2018-12-372] [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION VS. B.S. SHANTAKUMAR AND OTHERS [LAWS(KAR)-2017-9-145] [REFERRED TO]
RISHI PRAKASH GAUTAM VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2017-7-114] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK SINGH KUSHWAH VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS. [LAWS(MPH)-2015-10-5] [REFERRED TO]
SINDHU PARAMESWARAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2016-7-64] [REFERRED TO]
MEENA SHARMA VS. STATE OF BIHAR; MD MUSTAFA HUSSAIN; MANAGER BRAND PROTECT6ION, PROCTER AND GAMBLE [LAWS(PAT)-2015-5-158] [REFERRED]
SHANKARA BHAT VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2021-8-83] [REFERRED TO]
SHAILESH SINGH @ SHAILESH KUMAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR & ANR [LAWS(PAT)-2015-8-149] [REFERRED TO]
ARUN KUMAR CHAUDHARY VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2017-5-171] [REFERRED TO]
KISHOR AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2015-6-123] [REFERRED TO]
DIGANTA BARAH VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2023-7-4] [REFERRED TO]
RAKESH KUMAR SHARMA VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2021-5-15] [REFERRED TO]
CH. AMRITALINGAM VS. STATE [LAWS(ORI)-2016-6-61] [REFERRED TO]
STATION HOUSE OFFICER CBI/ACB/BANGALORE VS. B.A. SRINIVASAN [LAWS(SC)-2019-12-11] [REFERRED TO]
GAGAN AERO SPACE LTD VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2019-4-129] [REFERRED TO]
AIR INDIA LIMITED VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2021-2-91] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH EBRAHIM KUTTY MAJIDHA BEEVI AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM [LAWS(KER)-2017-10-332] [REFERRED TO]
RAMKUMARI GUPTA VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2019-1-248] [REFERRED TO]
AJAI KUMAR VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-6-173] [REFERRED TO]
KALPESH NAGINBHAI SHAH VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2017-9-47] [REFERRED TO]
AMARJYOTI GOGOI VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2021-11-98] [REFERRED TO]
S.N.RAM VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2016-7-85] [REFERRED TO]
MINU ROY VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2023-5-78] [REFERRED TO]
INDRANIL BARUA VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2023-6-60] [REFERRED TO]
INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND ORS. VS. BATTENAPATLA VENKATA RATNAM AND ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2015-4-39] [REFERRED TO]
VISHANDAS KANWARMAL LAKHWANI VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2018-9-12] [REFERRED TO]
MANOJ KUMAR RAZAK VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2017-9-9] [REFERRED TO]
KUSUM DEVI AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2015-8-2] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)These appeals are filed by four appellants, who were arrayed as accused persons in the complaint case No.183/2007 filed by the respondent herein before the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tiruchirapalli, Tamil Nadu. The complaint has been filed under Sections 120-B, 468, 420 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC'). The learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the said complaint and summoned the appellants. The appellants (who were arrayed as accused Nos.3, 4, 5 and 6) challenged the said summoning orders and sought quashment of the complaint by filing petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Cr.P.C.) inasmuch as according to them the allegations in the complaint did not make out any offence under the aforesaid provisions of the IPC; the complainant had neither any locus standi nor any legal status to prefer any such complaint; the appellants being public servants and Gazetted officers of the State Government of Chhattisgarh, no such criminal proceedings could be initiated against them without prior sanction from the appointing authority as per Section 197 of the Cr.P.C.; and the complaint was blatant misuse and abuse of the process of Court which was filed by the complainant after exhausting the civil remedies in which he had failed. The High Court, after examination of the matter, has not found any merit in any of the aforesaid contentions raised by the appellants and, consequently, dismissed their petitions.
(2.)Before we advert to the submissions of the appellants, which are mirror image of what was argued before the High Court, it would be appropriate to traverse through the relevant facts and events leading to the filing of the said complaint by the complainant. These are as under:
The Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board (for short 'the CSEB') issued an advertisement inviting tender (NIT) bearing No. T-136/2004 dated 02.06.2004 for its work at Hasedeo Thermal Power Station (Korba West) towards Designing, Engineering, Testing, Supply, Erection & Commission of HEA Ignition system. The applications received there under were required to be processed in three stages successively namely; Part-I (EMD); Part-II (Techno-Commercial Criteria) and Part III (Price Bid). The respondent herein submitted an application on 26.08.2004 as Chief Executive Officer of M/s Control Electronics India (CEI) requesting for Tender Document. The application was rejected on the ground that it was accompanied by incomplete documents i.e. non-submission of documentary evidence of past performance and experience of the respondent. The respondent made a complaint dated 06.09.2004 against appellant No. 3 herein alleging that the Tender Documents were not issued to the respondent. It was followed by several letters requesting for issuance of Tender Documents. He was informed that rather than pressurising the appellants here or other officials, he should furnish documents as per pre-qualifying condition of the Tender. In response thereto, vide his letter dated 05.11.2004, the respondent filed a copy of purchase order dated 28.01.2002 placed by Jharkhand State Electricity Board (for short 'the JSEB') and assured to supply other documentary evidence (performance report) subsequently. On such assurance, the Tender Documents were issued to the respondent. The respondent vide his letter dated 08.12.2004, mentioned that the Performance Report was enclosed in Part-II. However, the said report was not found enclosed and even after repeated requests from the CSEB to furnish documents, respondent did not fulfill the necessary requirement. As the respondent did not submit the necessary documents, the CSEB sought the information from the Chief Engineer of JSEB (arrayed in the complaint as accused No.2) vide letter dated 10.12.2004 about the performance of the respondent. Appellant No.2 herein was also deputed to get the desired information from JSEB. After meeting the officials of JSEB, appellant No.2 submitted his report stating that the works carried out by the respondent were not satisfactory as many defects were found therein. As per the appellants, even technical expertise was sought from SE (ET&I) KW (CSEB) and found that the respondent was not technically suitable as per the technical vetting and comparative data of SE (ET&I) KW letter dated 04.02.2005. On that basis, tender of the respondent was rejected. The appellants submit that as an outburst, in not getting the Tender in his favour, the respondent made complaints alleging irregularities to various fora including the State Government, which ordered the CSEB to conduct an enquiry. The CSEB submitted its report on 21.02.2006 stating that there were no such irregularities and that the respondent had not furnished the necessary documents despite repeated requests. At this stage, the respondent filed the Civil Suit (26-A/06) before the Civil Judge Class-II, Korba against the CSEB. However, the respondent moved an application seeking to withdraw the said suit. In any case he did not appear on the date fixed and accordingly the suit was dismissed for non-prosecution on 12.09.2006. The respondent herein then filed a Writ Petition No.2951 of 2006 before the Chhattisgarh High Court which was dismissed on 25.06.2007. Even costs of Rs.25,000/- was imposed while dismissing the writ petition with the observations that it was abuse of the process of Court.

Thereafter, SLP No.15897 of 2007 was preferred by the respondent which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 14.09.2007. After the exhaustion of these remedies, albeit unsuccessfully, the respondent filed a complaint before K.K. Nagar P.S., Thirucharapalli, Tamil Nadu. The police authorities refused to register the same on the ground that it is a civil dispute. It is, thereafter, that the respondent filed the said Criminal Complaint under Sections 120-B, 468, 420 & 500 IPC before the trial Court, which was registered as C.C. No. 183/07 and the trial Court issued summons to the appellants herein and accused No.1 (Successful Bidder) & accused No. 2 (then Chief Engineer, JSEB). Petitions of the appellants seeking quashing of the said complaint have been dismissed by the order of the High Court, which is impugned before us.

(3.)A reading of the said complaint reveals the following broad allegations levelled by the respondent:
(a) The respondent/complainant alleges that the appellants and accused No.1 (Successful Bidder) & accused No. 2 (then Chief Engineer, JSEB) had conspired secretly to disentitle the complainant's company by creating a discredit and for the said purpose, they were in constant touch so as to create the said Performance Report Cum Certificate, which was issued by accused No.2.

(b) The respondent/complainant alleges that the said conspiracy started with an agreement entered into by the 1st accused and the appellants herein and they planned to fabricate the said certificate dated 28.12.2004. For this purpose, accused No. 2 was approached so as to tailor the certificate totally discrediting the CEI (Company of the Complainant) with reference to supply and service relationship with Patratu Thermal Power Station (for short 'the PTPS') and JSEB.

(c) The respondent/complainant alleges that the said Certificate cum Report is false, fabricated, motivated and malafide and the same was contrary to the minutes of meeting that the complainant and his officials had with the officials of PTPS and JSEB. He further alleges that for the said reasons, the accused No. 2 was demoted from his post.

(d) The respondent/complainant alleges that on suspicion of such Certificate Cum Report, the complainant visited the CSEB and on verifying about the same, he found that the said tender was being given to Company of the 1st accused against the Complainant's Company and so he wrote a letter to the Chief Secretary and Chairman of JSEB for verifying and cancelling such certificate. He also wrote to many officials of the CSEB.

(e) The respondent/complainant alleges that the said Certificate is perse defamatory as against the complainant's company and is a crude attempt to favour accused No.1 by spoiling the image of the Complainants company. He further alleges that this caused a wrongful loss to the complainant's company by robbing its due chance to get a contract for the Boiler Plant Units at Korba.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.