C.W.P. No. 18317 of 2009 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … C.W.P. No. 18317 of 2009 Date of decision: 17.10.2011 Dr. Sukhdev Singh Dhillon and others .. Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents Coram: Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Narain Raina Present: Mr. Sanjeev Bansal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Amol Rattan Singh, Addl. A.G. Punjab for the respondents. .. 1. To be referred to the reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? Rajiv Narain Raina,J. 1. The principal issue raised in this public interest litigation relates to the alleged malfunctioning of the Vigilance Bureau, Punjab regarding investigation and registration of FIRs especially with reference to guidelines dated 6.3.2000 issued by the Vigilance Bureau. The core prayer in this petition under Article 226 is for directions to the learned trial Courts to stay the proceedings in four FIRs bearing the following particulars:- “1. FIR No.10 dated 8.9.2007 P.S. Vigilance Bureau, F.S.I, Mohali. 2. FIR No.5 dated 23.3.2007, Vigilance Bureau, Ludhiana. 3. FIR No. 30 dated 11.7.2007, Vigilance Bureau Patiala and 4. FIR No. 28 dated 20.6.2008, Vigilance Bureau, Patiala.” and consequently for necessary directions summoning the entire record of C.W.P. No. 18317 of 2009 2 the said four cases from the trial courts where they are pending to enable this court to examine the alleged illegalities committed by the Vigilance Bureau Punjab. The case in short is that the State Government in the Vigilance Bureau has issued guidelines dated 6.3.2000 for streamlining the vigilance machinery in the State of Punjab. These guidelines issued by the Vigilance Bureau (P1) have been exhaustively considered by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP 9256 of 2002-titled Ashok Choudary Vs. State of Punjab and others by the judgment dated 15.5.2006. In this case, the constitutionality of the circular dated 6.3.2000 was challenged. On a threadbare examination of the circular, the Division Bench opined as follows:- “ The challenge to the Circular would be valid if the same can be held to restrict the duties cast on Station House Officers under Chapter XII especially under Section 154 of the Code. There can be no manner of doubt that the Code has been enacted by the Parliament in exercise of powers conferred on it under Article 245 of the Constitution of India and List -III, Entry No.2 of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. There is also no doubt that list-III is a list in relation to which both the Centre and the States can legislate. It would be open to the State Legislature to modify any provision relating to criminal laws and this amendment would operate within the respective jurisdiction of the State concerned. It is not denied before us that the Circular has no legislative sanction and had been issued only by the State Government exercising powers under Article 166 of the Constitution of India. In view of this, it can in no manner restrict the obligation conferred on Station House Officers of respective Police Stations to abide by the mandate of Section 154 of the C.W.P. No. 18317 of 2009 3 Code. In fact, a closure scrutiny of the Circular shows that the Vigilance Department of the State of Punjab had no such intention. This Circular puts into position a mechanism evolved by the State of Punjab for dealing with the complaints against the Government officials which reach the Government. It seeks to avoid harassment which the Government servants may face3 in case unsubstantiated allegations made in complaint were to be acted upon before the authorities set up for the purpose are satisfied about the truth thereof. There being nothing in the Circular which prevent the Station House Officers of respective Police Stations from taking cognizance of cases brought to their notices and thereafter proceed to investigate into them, the grouse of the petitioner is unfounded as we have no doubt that action contemplated and the delay complained of is only regarding an administrative action which the State may like to initiate against the officials on account of misconduct that is alleged to have been committed by them. The obligation of the Police Force to our mind to respond promptly where any cognizable offence brought to its notice against any person howsoever high is in no way diluted by this Circular. In this view of the matter no legal infirmity which would call for any rectification at the hands of this Court can be found in the Circular and, therefore, Civil Writ Petition No. 9256 of 2002 has to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly.” 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have considered the ramifications of the prayers made with regard to the FIRs and the on going trials in matters which we would say are of sensitivity. It may not be proper for us to opine on the merits of the FIRs C.W.P. No. 18317 of 2009 4 and the on going trials least any comment falls from us which may prejudice the accused or the prosecution agency in those cases. Suffice it to say that the present is public interest litigation. The petitioners who are lawyers practicing in different courts are not personally aggrieved in those FIRs and have no connection thereto. 3. The learned State counsel has relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Janta Dal Versus H.S. Chowdhary and others and connected criminal appeals including a Writ Petition (Criminal) reported in (1991) 3 SCC 756. Learned Counsel contends that the present proceedings ought to be closed. We have been taken to paras 25 to 27 of the judgment. The same are reproduced as under: “It is most relevant to note that none of the appellants before this Court save the Union of India and CBI is connected in any way with the present criminal proceeding initiated on the strength of the First Information Report which is now sought to be quashed by Mr. H.S. Chowdhary. Although in the F.I.R., the names of three accused are specifically mentioned none of them has been impleaded as a respondent to these proceedings by anyone of the appellants. Even Mr. Martin Ardbo, former President of M/s A.B. Bofors, who was impleaded as a proforma respondent in Criminal Appeal No. 310/91 has been given up by the Solicitor General. Therefore, under these circumstances, one should not lose sight of the significant fact that in case this Court pronounces its final opinion or conclusions on the issues other than the general issues raised by the C.W.P. No. 18317 of 2009 5 appellants as public interest litigants, without hearing the really affected person/persons such opinion or conclusions may, in future, in case the investigation culminates in filing a final report become detrimental and prejudicial to the indicted accused persons who would be totally deprived of challenging such opinion or conclusions of this 'apex Court,even if they happen to come in possession of some valuable material to canvass the correctness of such opinion or conclusions and consequently their vested legal right to defend their case in their own way would be completely nullified by the verdict now sought to be obtained by these public interest litigants. Even if there are million questions of law to be deeply gone into and examined in a criminal case of this nature registered against specified accused persons, it is for them and them alone to raise all such questions and challenge the proceedings initiated against them at the appropriate time before the proper forum and not for third parties under the garb of public interest litigants. ' We, in the above background of the case, after bestowing our anxious and painstaking consideration and careful thought to all aspects of the case and deeply examining the rival contentions of the parties both collectively and individually give our conclusions as follows: C.W.P. No. 18317 of 2009 6 1. Mr. H.S. Chowdhary has no locus standi (a) to file the petition under Article 51-A as a public interest litigant praying that no letter rogatory/request be issued at the request of the CBI and he be permitted to join the inquiry before the Special Court which on 5.2.90 directed issuance of letter rogatory/request to the Competent Judicial Authorities of the Confederation of Switzerland; (b) to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Sections0397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the correctness, legality or propriety of the order dated 18.8.90of the Special Judge and (c) to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the First Information Report .dated 22.1.90 and all other proceedings arising therefrom on the plea of preventing the abuse of the process of the Court. 2. In our considered opinion, the initiation of the present proceedings by Mr. H.S. Chowdhary under Article 51-A of the Constitution of India cannot come within the true meaning and scope of public interest litigation.” 4. In view of the law laid down in Janta Dal’s case (supra), this court would be loath to continue with the present proceedings under the garb of public interest litigation. Third parties would have no locus- standi to call in question criminal proceedings before the writ court. We therefore, C.W.P. No. 18317 of 2009 7 terminate the proceedings and restrain ourselves from exercising any further jurisdiction beyond what has been hitherto travelled. On the issue of validity of the guidelines, we broadly endorse the view of the coordinate Division Bench in Ashok Choudary’s case taken after exhaustive analysis and have nothing for the present to add to it. Needless to say, the criminal trials in the four FIRs would be taken to their logical conclusion expeditiously. 5. The writ petition is consequently dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.M.KUMAR) (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE October 17, 2011 nk