Total stranger has no right to interfere with criminal proceedings: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has held that a "total stranger has no rights to interfere in criminal proceedings," while hearing a matter filed by a third party seeking quashing of a government order conducting further investigation of the case under Section 173(8) of the Code by another special investigation unit of the VACB.
The case is that the respondent is a senior police officer. He is the accused in a case pending in the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kottayam. It is a case based on the final report filed by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB), Special Cell, Ernakulam.
The respondent filed an application for discharge under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in the Special Court. The aforesaid application was dismissed by the Special Court on 29.05.2020. The respondent filed Crl.R.P.No.399/2020 in Kerala High Court challenging that order. The above revision petition was dismissed by this Court on 18.12.2020 as not pressed.
Subsequently, the Government of Kerala issued an order dated 28.01.2021, granting sanction for
. The writ petition is filed by a third party for quashing such investigation order of the government.
Petitioner's Contention
The petitioner contended that the impugned order was issued by the State with the sole intention of protecting the second. The petitioner stated that the G.O was the result of mala fide exercise of power by the Government and it is liable to be quashed.
Respondent's Contention
The Respondent argued that the petitioner is not a person aggrieved by the said order. It was further submitted that the Government was empowered to issue direction for conducting investigations.
Court's Findings
The Court while quashed the petition on the following grounds:
- The Court observed that the government has every right to order an investigation.
“The first proviso to Section 17 of the Act states that, if a police officer not below the rank of an Inspector of Police is authorised by the State Government by general or special order, such officer can investigate the offence under the Act (See State v. S.Bangarappa : AIR 2001 SC 222). Therefore, there is no legal bar for the special investigation unit authorised by the Government to conduct the further investigation of the case against the second respondent.”
- The petitioner does not have any locus standi. The Court observed that Locus standi of a person to prefer a complaint with regard to the commission of an offense under the Act cannot be equated with the right to challenge an order issued by the government directing to conduct further investigation of a case.
“Even if the petitioner is a crusader against corruption, it does not confer him any special right to interfere with the investigation of a case.”
- The Court held that the petitioner’s call for judicial review can not be fulfilled because the basic tenets have not been achieved.
“Article 226 of the Constitution is designed to ensure that each and every authority in the State, including the State, acts bona fide and within the limits of its power. However, the power of judicial review is not intended to assume a supervisory role. The power is also not intended to review governance under the rule of law. Decisions and actions which do not have adjudicative disposition may not strictly fall for consideration for judicial review.”
Case Title: Bobby Kuruvilla v. State of Kerala & Anr