SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- M.K. Mukherjee and Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, JJ.

S.L.P. (Cri.) No. 3290 of 1997 WITH S.L.P. (Cri.) No. 671 of 1998. D/d. 21.8.1998.

Selvi J. Jayalalitha - Petitioner

Versus

R. Sai Bharathi - Respondent

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 19, 13(2) read with 13(1) - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 169 - Stay of proceedings - On account of pending of SLP for quashing of private complaint under section 169 Indian Penal Code and High Court further interpreted the section 19 of the Act - Challenged - Since the SLP has disposed of interpretation of section of Act has become redundant - High Court's direction for postponing the proceedings can not stand any more.

[Paras 2 and 3]

ORDER

The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the validity of the order of the High Court dismissing the petition filed by her praying to quash the complaint filed against her by the respondent No. 1 for alleged commission of an offence under Section 169 Indian Penal Code The respondent No. 1 has now filed an application stating that as the police had submitted a charge sheet against the petitioner for various offences including one under Section 169 Indian Penal Code for which the complaint was filed by him, he may be permitted to withdraw his complaint. Permission as sought for is granted. In view of the application so filed, this petition has become infructuous.

S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 671/98

2. On a charge sheet filed by the police against the respondent and others under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and other cognate offences under the Indian Penal Code the Special Judge took cognizance and issued processes against them. After entering appearance, the respondent filed an application stating that in respect of one of the above offences (under Section 169 Indian Penal Code) a private complaint had been filed against her and that in respect of quashing the same a special leave petition was pending hearing before the Supreme Court (S.L.P. (Cri.) No. 3290/97) and accordingly prayed that the proceeding of the police case be postponed till that petition was disposed of. The Special Judge rejected that application and aggrieved thereby, the respondent moved the High Court. The High Court allowed that application by the impugned order; and while so doing interpreted the provisions of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which relates to stay of proceedings of cases under the said Act. The above order of the High Court is under challenge in this petition.

3. In the context of the nature of prayer made in the I.A. by the respondent before us, we are of the opinion, the interpretation of Section 19 of the above Act has become redundant, since the other petition namely S.L.P. (Cri.) No. 3290/97 has now been disposed of by our earlier order and the High Courts direction postponing the proceedings cannot stand any more; we set aside the same. All questions of law raised before the High Court are kept open. The Special Judge is directed to now proceed with the case in accordance with law.

4. The special leave petitions and the I. As. are disposed of accordingly.

Order accordingly.