Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. On a criminal complaint filed by Dr. Subramanian Swamy (hereinafter referred to as respondent/complainant) alleging cheating, etc., trial court after recording pre-summoning evidence of the complainant-Dr. Subramanian Swamy (CW-1), a Charted Accountant-

M.R.Ventakesh (CW-2), an official from Registrar of Companies-Gulab Chand (CW-3) and J. Gopikrishnan (CW-4) associated with the newspaper-The Pioneer, vide impugned order of 26th June, 2014 has summoned petitioners of the above-captioned five petitions as accused No. 1 to 7 for the offences under Sections 403, 406 and 420 read with Section 120-B of IPC.

26. According to respondent-complainant, Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) was indeed held but with just seven shareholders and no proxies and yet, it was said that the quorum was requisite. The legality of this EGM is questioned by respondent-complainant by pointing out that approximately 99% shares of AJL stood transferred to Y.I. and thus, AJL became an almost wholly owned subsidiary of Y.I.. In the written synopsis placed on record by respondent-complainant, it has been highlighted as to how 761 shareholders of AJL were reduced to minority status of 1% with no clue as to what was in store for them and instead of reviving the newspaper publication, the assets of AJL are being misused to earn commercial profits, which was not the purpose of AJL. In support of the stand taken by respondent-complainant, reliance was placed upon decisions in Binod Kumar & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr; (2014) 10 SCC 663; N.Soundaram v. P.K.Pounraj & Anr; (2014) 10 SCC 616, Rishipal Singh v. State of U.P. (2014) 7 SCC 215; Arvind Kejriwal & Ors. v. Amit Sibal & Anr. (2014) 1 JCC 229; Rajiv Thapar & Ors. v. Madan Lal Kapoor (2013) 3 SCC 330; Crl.M.C. 4751 of 2013 titled Kamla Rana v. NCT State & Ors. decided on 19th May, 2014; Nupur Talwar v. CBI (2012) 11 SCC 465; Bhushan Kumar v. NCT (2012) 5 SCC 424; Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh (2012) 3 SCC 64; Centre for Public Interest Litigation & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2012) 3 SCC 1, (2012) 1 SCC; Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. & Ors. (2006) 6 SCC 736; M/s Medchl Chemicals & Pharma P.Ltd. v. M/s Biological E.Ltd. & Ors. (2000) 3 SCC 269; Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada (1997) 2 SCC 397; State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. (1992) Supp. (1) SCC 335 and Express Newspapers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India AIR 1986 SC 872.

29. Upon evaluating the impugned order on the touchstone of judicial precedents and in the light of submissions advanced by both the sides, this Court finds that question of locus standi of respondent-complainant to maintain the complaint in question pales into insignificance in view of the fact that Apex Court in Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh (supra) has reiterated that freedom of a private citizen to proceed against the corrupt cannot be restricted. It will not be fair to literally interpret Section 39 of Cr.P.C. or to assert that a private citizen is free to proceed against corrupt public servants but not against a political party when it is accused of serious offences of cheating, misappropriation, etc.. In a unique case, like the instant one, expanded meaning to the law has to be given. In the considered opinion of this Court, the plea of locus standi cannot be restricted to typical cases of cheating, misappropriation, etc., as here is a case where the act of Office Bearers of Political Party having criminal overtones is under scrutiny and so, the challenge to the locus of respondent-complainant to maintain the complaint in question is hereby repelled.