SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- M.B. Shah and S.N. Variava, JJ.

Crl. Appeal No. 992 Of 2000. (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1169/2000). Crl.Appeal No.993/2000. Arising Out Of Slp (Crl) No.1250/2000). Crl.Appeal No. 994/2000. (Arising out of SLP (Crl.)No.2400/2000). Crl.Appeal No.995/2000. (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1301/2000). D/d. 17.11.2000.

State Of Bihar - Appellant

Versus

Purushottam Singh - Respondent

With

State Of Bihar - Appellant

Versus

Om Prakash Gupta - Respondent

With

Bihar State Electricity Board - Appellant

Versus

Purushottam Singh - Respondent

And

Bihar State Electricity Board - Appellant

Versus

Om Prakash Gupta & Anr. - Respondents

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 482 Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 420, 201/120-B - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 13(i) and 13(2) - Quashing of criminal proceedings - Trial Court directed to frame charges against the accused for offence punishable under Section 420, 201/120B Indian Penal Code and Sections 13(i) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act - High Court in petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 quashed the Criminal proceedings against the accused on the ground that they have been exonerated of the charges in departmental proceedings and cannot be prosecuted for the same cause of action - Such order passed by High Court without going through the material collected by Investigating Agency - Held - High Court ought to have considered the material collected during investigation so as to find out if charges could be framed on the basis of it- Order of High Court set aside.

[Paras 3 to 5]

JUDGMENT

M.B. Shah, J. - Leave granted.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. The respondents in these appeals approached the High Court for quashing the criminal proceedings including the order dated 5.1.1996 passed by the Special Judge, Vigilance, whereby he has directed to frame charges against the accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 420, 201 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 13 (1) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Those petitions were allowed by the learned single Judge of the High Court solely on the ground that accused persons have been exonerated of the charges in the departmental proceedings and for the same cause of action accused cannot be prosecuted.

4. That order is under challenge before this Court. It has been pointed out on behalf of the State that voluminous material is collected by the investigating agency and the Electricity Board has not exonerated the concerned persons. Hence, there was no question of quashing the proceedings. In any case, the learned counsel submitted that without considering such record, the High Court ought not to have passed the impugned order.

5. In our view, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant requires to be accepted. The High Court ought to have gone through the material to find out whether prima facie, there was sufficient material to frame the charges. In this view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside. The appeals are allowed. The petitions are restored on the file of the High Court and the matters are remanded back to the High Court. The High Court is requested to decide afresh the petitions in accordance with law. It would be open to the parties to raise all the contentions which they are entitled to raise.

6. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.

Appeal allowed.