Third-Party Can File SLP Under Article 136 Against Quashing Of Criminal Proceedings : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently reiterated that a third party can file a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution against the quashing of criminal proceedings.

An appeal by a private individual can be entertained, both sparingly and after due vigilance, said the Court relying on the precedents in National Commission for Women v. State of Delhi & Anr. (2010) 12 SCC 599 and Amanuallah & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Ors. (2016) 6 SCC 699.

It was also noted that in P.S.R. Sadhanantham v. Arunachalam & Anr (1980) 3 SCC 141, a 5-judge bench had held that "the Court should be liberal in allowing any third party, having bona fide connection with the matter, to maintain the appeal with a view to advance substantial justice."

Rejecting Kerala MLA Antony Raju's challenge to the locus standi of a private party which assailed the quashing of criminal proceedings against him, the Court observed that it is incumbent upon it to check the correctness of High Courts' approach and locus standi cannot come in the way of the same.

A bench of Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol made the observation while dealing with Raju's challenging to the locus of Green Kerala News Editor-MR Ajayan to file an appeal against quashing of criminal proceedings against him.  

To quote from the judgment : 

"the locus standi of the appellant in SLP(Crl.)No.4887 of 2024, does not come in the way of this Court hearing the same. The case at hand, which has been quashed by the High Court, involves serious allegations of interference with judicial processes which strike at the very foundation of both dispensation and the administration of justice. Therefore, the first issue is answered in the affirmative as it is incumbent upon this Court to check the correctness of the approach adopted by the High Court, and the locus of the appellant would not come in the way of the same."

Briefly stated, Raju, a junior lawyer in 1990, was accused of tampering with underwear evidence in a drugs case, where the accused was acquitted but the Kerala High Court directed that the matter of planting of tinkered evidence (pursuant to a criminal conspiracy between Raju and a clerk) be looked into.

The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against Raju, but directed that de novo steps be taken based on the allegations. Assailing the same, Raju and Ajayan approached the Supreme Court. One of the issues before the Court was whether Ajayan had locus standi to file a special leave petition against the High Court order.

Raju pled that Ajayan, a third party, could not be permitted to prefer appeal in criminal proceedings. In this regard, he placed reliance on the judgments in P.S.R. Sadhanantham v. Arunachalam & Anr., National Commission for Women v. State of Delhi & Anr. and Amanuallah & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Ors.

Going through the record, the Supreme Court noted that Ajayan filed an intervention application before the High Court, resisting Raju's quashing petition. It further considered the decision in Naveen Singh v. State of U.P. where, while considering the locus of the petitioner therein, a coordinate bench of the Court observed that since the allegations concerned tampering with an order of the Court, locus was not that important but, in fact, insignificant with the State not carrying forward the matter.

While also opining that the bar under Section 195(1)(b) CrPC was not attracted in the case, the Court noted that there was an element of public interest involved. It was stated that the alleged act was a glaring occurrence of interference with criminal prosecution, impugning upon sanctity of judicial proceedings and resulting in travesty of justice.

"Such actions not only erode public trust in the judicial system but compromise the principles of the rule of law and fairness, which are essential for the justice delivery system. Such incidents strike at the foundation of the independence and integrity of the judicial process, hence, it cannot be said that there is a lack of public interest herein. In the peculiar circumstances obtained in this case where the accused allegedly received a material object in question, from the judicial custody, despite there being no specific order for release thereof, and subsequently tinkered/ assisted in tinkering with the same and thereafter substituted it for the original", the Court added.

Case Title: MR AJAYAN v. THE STATE OF KERALA AND ORS., SLP(Crl) No. 4887/2024 (and connected case)

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 905

Click here to read the judgment