Supreme Court of India
Gagan Banga vs The State Of West Bengal on 23 September, 2024
Author: Sanjay Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar, Sanjay Kumar
2024 INSC 722 Non-reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
Misc. Application No. 1861 of 2023
with
Interlocutory Application No. 138072 of 2023
&
Misc. Application No. 1862 of 2023
with
Interlocutory Application No. 150965 of 2023
in
WRIT PETITION (CRL.) No. 166 OF 2023
Gagan Banga and another … Writ Petitioners
Versus
The State of West Bengal and others … Respondents
JUDGMENT
SANJAY KUMAR, J
1. Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 166 of 2023 was filed by Gagan Banga and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
babita pandey
Date: 2024.09.23
Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited, New Delhi, under Article 32 of the
17:24:45 IST
Reason:
Constitution of India, with the following prayers: –
1
‘In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, it is, therefore,
most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be
pleased to:
i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or
any other appropriate writ or order thereby laying down
appropriate guidelines to be followed by all including the police
officials and Judicial Magistrate to desist from initiating or directing
initiation of criminal proceedings against the financial institutions,
its assignees, management, officers, employees, lawful
transferees and purchasers of secured assets at the behest of
disgruntled defaulting borrowers, so as to protect their
fundamental rights inter alia guaranteed under Article 14, 19 and
21 of the Constitution of India, 1950;
ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari or
any other appropriate writ or order thereby quashing the FIR’s
mentioned at Table 1 above registered by or at the instance of
disgruntled defaulting borrowers in abuses of process of law by
giving criminal colour to civil dispute, with consequential reliefs;
iii. Impose exemplary costs on the Respondents for abusing
the process of law;
iv. Pass any other other(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit
and proper.’
2. Table 1, referred to in prayer ii above, was set out in paragraph 5 of the
writ petition and mentioned 3 FIRs, viz., FIR No. 646 of 2022 dated
26.10.2022 registered at PS Titagarh, West Bengal; FIR No. 427 of 2023
dated 09.04.2023 registered at PS Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh;
and FIR No. 25 of 2021 dated 27.01.2021 registered at PS Economic
Offences Wing, Delhi.
2
3. By interim order dated 28.04.2023, this Court granted stay of all
proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIRs in three different States.
4. Thereafter, on 03.07.2023, the writ petitioners filed three I.A.s in the
writ petition. I.A. No. 122408 of 2023 was filed by them seeking to implead
Yamuna Industrial Development Authority (YIDA), Greater Noida, Uttar
Pradesh, and the Enforcement Directorate, New Delhi, as respondent Nos.
7 and 8 in the writ petition. They stated that FIR No. 197 of 2023 dated
15.04.2023 was registered at PS Bita-2, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh, at
the behest of YIDA and then, the Enforcement Directorate, New Delhi,
registered ECIR No. ECIR/HIU-1/06/2023 based on the said FIR and the
earlier FIR No. 427 dated 09.04.2023. By way of I.A. No. 122410 of 2023,
they sought stay of further proceedings pursuant to FIR No. 197 of 2023
and ECIR No. ECIR/HIU-I/06/2023. I.A. No. 122413 of 2023 was filed by
them seeking to bring on record additional facts and include an additional
prayer to quash FIR No. 197 of 2023 dated 15.04.2023 and ECIR No.
ECIR/HIU-1/06/2023 in so far as they were concerned.
5. The writ petition was taken up for hearing on 04.07.2023 and disposed
of with directions. The final order records that the IAs for im00.pleadment
and to bring on record additional facts were both allowed. Taking note of
the facts of the case, this Court deemed it appropriate to permit the writ
3
petitioners to approach the jurisdictional High Courts to challenge all four
FIRs and the ECIR within two weeks, requesting the High Courts to
consider and decide the petitions expeditiously and not later than six
months from the date of their presentation. Till the final disposal of the
respective petitions, the earlier interim order dated 28.04.2023 passed in
the writ petition in respect of the first three FIRs was directed to continue.
6. As regards FIR No. 197 of 2023 and ECIR No. ECIR/HIU-I/06/2023,
this Court directed that no coercive steps should be taken against the
petitioner financial institution and its officers, representatives and managers
till the final disposal of such petitions by the High Court and left it open to
the petitioners to seek stay of proceedings therein, which had to be
considered by the High Court on merits. It was clarified that this interim
protection would only be applicable to the petitioner financial institution and
its officers, representatives and managers and not to any other persons. All
contentions available in law to the parties were kept open to be raised
before the High Courts and the said High Courts were to decide the
petitions strictly on their own merits and in accordance with law.
7. Though, seemingly innocuous, the order dated 04.07.2023 has led to
the filing of the present miscellaneous and interlocutory applications
seeking its modification and recall.
4
8. In the meanwhile, it appears that the writ petitioners approached the
jurisdictional High Courts seeking the quashing of criminal proceedings
initiated against them. Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 10893 of
2023 was filed before the Allahabad High Court to quash FIR No. 197 of
2023 and ECIR No. ECIR/HIU-1/06/2023. Interim order dated 13.07.2023
was passed therein but the same was set aside by this Court on
13.02.2024. Thereafter, judgment was reserved in this case on 22.08.2024.
Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 14101 of 2023 was filed before the
Allahabad High Court to quash FIR No. 427 of 2023. The High Court
reserved judgment in this case also on 22.08.2024. Crl. MC. No. 4961 of
2023 was filed before the Delhi High Court assailing FIR No. 25 of 2021
dated 27.01.2021. The date for final arguments in this case is 15.10.2024.
C.R.R. No. 4503 of 2022 was filed before the Calcutta High Court in
relation to FIR No. 646 of 2022 dated 26.10.2022 and an interim order was
passed on 21.12.2022, directing that no coercive steps should be taken.
Notably, this writ petition was instituted before Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 166 of
2023 was filed before this Court.
9. Amit Walia, respondent No. 5 in the writ petition, filed an application
seeking modification of the order dated 04.07.2023, in so far as it barred
investigation till final disposal of the cases by the High Courts. The
5
Enforcement Directorate, New Delhi, sought recall of the order as it was not
heard before the disposal of the case with directions adverse to it.
10. It is well settled that, ordinarily and in the usual course, this Court
would be averse and opposed to entertaining miscellaneous applications in
disposed of cases. In Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others vs.
Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd. and another1, this Court observed that
post-disposal applications for modification and clarification of the disposal
order shall lie only in rare cases, where the order passed by this Court is
executory in nature and the directions become impossible to implement
due to subsequent developments. Reference was made to Supertech Ltd.
vs. Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association and others 2,
wherein this Court had found that the miscellaneous application filed in that
disposed of case was to seek substantive modification of the judgment and
held that such an attempt is not permissible by way of a modification/
clarification application. In that context, the caselaw, set out below, on the
maintainability of such applications was considered at length.
11. In Delhi Administration vs. Gurdip Singh Uban and others 3, it was
observed that applications are sometimes filed for “clarification”,
“modification” or “recall”, not because any such clarification or modification
1
(2024) 3 SCR 1023 = 2024 INSC 213
2
(2023) 10 SCC 817
3
(2000) 7 SCC 296
6
is necessary but because the applicant, in reality, wants a review and a
hearing and, thereby, seeks to avoid listing of the matter in chambers by
way of circulation. Again, in Common Cause vs. Union of India and
others4, it was affirmed that if a clarification application is, in substance,
seeking review of the judgment and that attempt is made by disguising it as
a clarification application so as to have a hearing in open Court, avoiding
the procedure governing review petitions, such an attempt should be
deprecated. Later, in Meghmala and others vs. G. Narasimha Reddy
and others5, this Court observed that a disturbing trend has emerged of
repeated applications, styled as miscellaneous applications, being filed in
the Court after a final judgment is pronounced and condemned the practice
as one having no legal foundation, which must be firmly discouraged. More
recently, in Rashid Khan Pathan and Vijay Kurle and others, in re 6, this
Court held that in a country governed by the Rule of Law, finality of
judgments is absolutely imperative and great sanctity is attached to such
finality. It was further observed that permitting parties to reopen concluded
judgments by filing repeated interlocutory applications amounts to an abuse
of the process of law which would have a far-reaching adverse impact on
the administration of justice.
4
(2004) 5 SCC 222
5
(2010) 8 SCC 383
6
(2021) 12 SCC 64
7
12. However, when the individual facts of a particular case so warrant,
there can be no bar to entertaining a clarification/modification petition in a
disposed of case. This would necessarily depend on the facts and
circumstances of that individual case. Notably, Rule 6 of Order LV of the
Supreme Court Rules, 2013, states that nothing in the said Rules shall be
deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent powers of the Court to
make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent
abuse of the process of the Court. Therefore, if any such abuse of process
is noticed after the disposal of the case or if a modification is found
essential to meet the ends of justice, this Court would be justified in
entertaining an application in a disposed of case and exercising such
power.
13. As pointed out by this Court in V.K. Jain v. High Court of Delhi
through Registrar General and others7, our legal system acknowledges the
fallibility of Judges. Though this observation was made in the context of
Judges of the District Judiciary, it would be equally applicable to those in
higher echelons of the judicial hierarchy. As Courts of record, it is
necessary that Constitutional Courts recognize errors that may have crept
into their judicial orders and rectify the same when called upon to do so.
7
(2008) 17 SCC 538
8
In Rajendra Prasad Arya v. State of Bihar 8, this Court observed that there
can be no dispute with the proposition that the Court always has the power
to rectify any mistake committed by it. Being the Court of the last resort,
this Court would not shy away from acknowledging any mistakes in its
orders and would be ready to set right such wrongs.
14. It is a settled principle that no adverse order should be passed against
a party without hearing it. This is the fundamental principle of natural justice
and it is a basic canon of jurisprudence (see Asit Kumar Kar vs. State of
West Bengal and others9). The application filed by the Enforcement
Directorate, New Delhi, seeking recall of the order dated 04.07.2023 is
premised on the sole ground that it was not given a hearing prior to its
passing. As pointed out in State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar
and others10, the power of recall is different from the power of altering/
reviewing a judgment. It was held therein that if an order is pronounced
without giving an opportunity of hearing to a party affected by it, inherent
powers of the Court can be exercised to recall such an order.
15. In the case on hand, the Enforcement Directorate, New Delhi, was
impleaded as a party respondent in the writ petition on 04.07.2023, by way
of the final order disposing of the case. The final order was passed without
8
(2000) 9 SCC 514
9
(2009) 2 SCC 703
10
(2011) 14 SCC 770
9
putting it on notice and affording it an opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the
directions of this Court in the said order in relation to ECIR No.
ECIR/HIU-1/06/2023 cannot be sustained. More so, as the final order only
records that the interlocutory applications for impleadment and to bring on
record additional facts were allowed and no more. Significantly, I.A. No.
81083 of 2023, seeking permission to file additional documents/facts/
annexures, was alone reflected in the Record of Proceedings of that day in
relation to the writ petition. I.A. No. 122413 of 2023 was not even listed or
shown. In any event, the application for amendment of the prayers was not
ordered. In effect, FIR No. 197 of 2023 and ECIR No. ECIR/HIU-1/06/2023
were not even made the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition.
16. Further, though this Court relegated the writ petitioners to the
jurisdictional High Courts for challenging the FIRs registered against them,
certain errors crept in by oversight while doing so. As regards FIR No. 197
of 2023, this Court directed that no coercive steps should be taken in
relation thereto against the petitioner financial institution and its people till
final disposal of such a petition by the High Court. Having said that, this
Court went on to observe that it would be open to the writ petitioners to
seek stay of proceedings in relation thereto, which was to be considered by
the High Court on merits. In effect, though they stood protected from
10
coercive action in relation to this FIR, proceedings pursuant thereto were
permitted to go on and it was left open to them to seek stay of such
proceedings before the High Court. Once, no coercive steps were
permitted in connection with the said FIR till the final disposal of the petition
which was to be filed, the question of permitting the petitioners to again
seek stay of proceedings in relation to the said FIR before the High Court
was unnecessary.
17. Further, the stay of proceedings granted by this Court in the writ
petition, in relation to the first three FIRs, was directed to continue till the
disposal of the writ petitions to be filed before the High Courts. When a
party is relegated to the High Court to pursue its remedies, it would not be
proper, in the normal course, to bind the said High Court with directions in
relation to the proceedings to be impugned before such Court. Ordinarily,
this Court would leave all issues open for the party so relegated to raise
and pursue before the High Court. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
vs. State of Maharashtra and others 11, a 3-Judge Bench of this Court laid
down guidelines for exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC, cautioning
that criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled and Courts, in the usual
course, should not thwart investigation into cognizable offences. That being
so and as no compelling reasons were recorded by this Court in the order
11
(2021) SCC OnLine SC 315 = 2021 INSC 253
11
dated 04.07.2023 to justify deviation in the case on hand, it clearly
manifests that it was purely unintentional and due to sheer oversight.
18. That apart, such directions can be misconstrued by the High Courts to
be observations by this Court on the merits of the matter, thereby
influencing the adjudication of the case. Thus, for reasons more than one,
we are of the opinion that the order dated 04.07.2023 requires to be
modified. The said order shall stand recalled insofar as it pertains to ECIR
No. ECIR/HIU-1/06/2023. It is left open to the High Court of Allahabad to
consider the challenge thereto in Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.
10893 of 2023 on merits and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any
observations made in the order dated 04.07.2023. Further, the said order
dated 04.07.2023 shall stand modified by substituting the words ‘till final
disposal of the respective petitions…’ in paragraph 8 thereof with the words
‘till the filing of the respective petitions’. This would mean that the High
Courts in which proceedings have been instituted against the FIRs would
be at liberty to entertain applications for interim relief in relation thereto and
consider such applications and also the main cases on their own merits
and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations made in the
order dated 04.07.2023. The miscellaneous applications and the
interlocutory applications are disposed of accordingly.
12
Registry shall upload and attach a corrigendum to the order dater
04.07.2023 passed in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 166 of 2023, stating that it
stands duly modified by and to the extent indicated in this order.
………………………..,J
(SANJAY KUMAR)
………………………..,J
(ARAVIND KUMAR)
September 23, 2024;
New Delhi.
13