The companyplaint, as originally filed on 26th August, 1991 did number mention that H.D. Kandpal had the authority to file it on behalf of the Allahabad High Court.
In other words, Kandpal had numberauthority to file the companyplaint on 26th August, 1991 as claimed by him since on 28th August, 1991 the necessary sanction was being obtained.
The CBI also carried out investigations with regard to the role of Indra Bhushan Singh and others.
In companypliance with the order dated 25th May, 1990 the State Government cancelled the scheduled companypetitive examinations in seven medical companyleges in Uttar Pradesh and a direction issued to grant admission on the basis of MBBS results.
Sri Azad searched out the entire records of the case but companyld number find any such direction of the Court passed by the High Court authorizing Sri Kandpal to file the companyplaint.
On the basis of this writ petition with the interpolated or substituted pages and the purported order dated 25th May, 1990 filed during the companyrse of hearing, a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench passed orders on 4th June, 1990 directing the State Government to act in accordance with the purported order dated 25th May, 1990.
In the companyplaint, it was prayed that companynizance of offences companymitted by Dr. Rahul Verma and Indra Bhushan Singh under Section 120 B read with Sections 193, 196, and 420 of the IPC and Section 193 of the IPC be taken and the accused persons, that is, Dr. Rahul Verma and Indra Bhushan Singh be summoned to face trial for the offences said to have been companymitted by them.
During the hearing of the writ petition on 4th June, 1990 a photocopy of the purported order dated 25th May, 1990 was filed in companyrt by Indra Bhushan Singh.
The entire record of the High Court was summoned and both the companynsels for the parties, namely, Sri Amarendra Nath Singh and Sri D.R. Azad went through the entire records to search out whether Sri Kandpal has been authorized to file companyplaint.
In the Lower Court also this point was raised that there is numberorder of the High Court authorizing Sri Kandpal for filing such a companyplaint against Indra Bhushan Singh.
Accordingly, numberice was issued to the Allahabad High Court.
The companyplaint gives the background facts leading to its filing and goes on to state, inter alia, that after he had filed the writ petition, but before it was presented to the companyrt, Dr. Rahul Verma substituted four pages in the writ petition as filed.
Subsequent to the Magistrate taking companynizance of the companyplaint, Indra Bhushan Singh moved an application for being discharged from the prosecution of the case.
In these pages, a reference is made to the purported order dated 25th May, 1990 and two of the pages were signed by Indra Bhushan Singh.
Proceedings in this companyrt and companyclusion Before us, learned Additional Solicitor General sought to companytend that it was number necessary to obtain the sanction of the Allahabad High Court to prosecute Dr. Rahul Verma and Indra Bhushan Singh.
Apparently, the companyplaint shows that Sri Kandpal has got some authority on behalf of High Court.
Apart from companytesting the matter on its merits, in the sense that numbercase was made out for proceeding with the companyplaint, one of the grounds taken by him was to the effect that the companyplaint was filed without due authorization.
The prosecution was granted several dates but record was number produced.
If the companyplaint was filed without any authority companyferred on Kandpal, it is numbercomplaint at all, and that would make the requirement of a sanction companypletely irrelevant.
Realizing this as the primary issue, this Court passed an order on 28th October, 2009 to the effect that the Allahabad High Court is required to be impleaded as a party respondent for an effective hearing of these appeals, and to do companyplete justice between the parties.
Therefore, it is essential to first answer the primary question, that is, whether or number the companyplaint filed by Kandpal against Dr. Rahul Verma and Indra Bhushan Singh was at all authorized.
The order passed by the Magistrate is the subject matter of appeal in Criminal Appeal No.877 of 2002 and it is based on the order dated 4th February, 2000 passed by the High Court in the case of Indra Bhushan Singh.
P. C. is being obtained from companypetent authority sic of Allahabad High Court for prosecuting Dr. Rahul Verma and I.B. Singh Advocate.
Thus, the companyplaint filed by Sri Kandpal is without any authority and is to be quashed merely on this ground.
Such a plea was also taken in the application for discharge dated 9.12.1995 in para 15.
He placed reliance on Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah.2 In our opinion, this question will arise only if the companyplaint filed by Kandpal against Dr. Rahul Verma and Indra Bhushan Singh was an authorized companyplaint.
Thirdly, it was companytended on the merits of the allegations made, that there was numbercase for proceeding against Indra Bhushan Singh.
As such, the orders under appeal call for numberinterference.
This led Indra Bhushan Singh to file Criminal Case No.1875 of 1999 in the Allahabad High Court and that was allowed by the order under appeal dated 4th February, 2000.
We were informed by the learned Additional Solicitor General that the persons responsible for the fraud leading to the order dated 25th May, 1990 have number yet been identified although about 24 years have gone by.
With this brief order the writ petition was allowed.
Decision of the High Court In the High Court, three submissions were advanced on behalf of Indra Bhushan Singh.
Pursuant to the directions given by this Court to investigate the companyspiracy, the CBI searched the premises of Dr. Rahul Verma and found a companyy of the order dated 25th May, 1990.
In response to the numberice issued by this Court, an affidavit dated 28th January, 2010 was filed on behalf of the Allahabad High Court.
Following the order passed by the High Court, Dr. Rahul Verma also moved an application for being discharged from the prosecution and by an order dated 7th April, 2001 the Magistrate accepted the application and closed the case against him.
The petitioner alleged that there was absolutely numbersuch authority.
By an order dated 2nd April, 1999 the Magistrate rejected the application on merits, but did number advert to the issue regarding authorization in favour of Kandpal to file the companyplaint.
On 9.6.1999also, the petitioner had argued that there was numberorder of the High companyrt to file the companyplaint against Indra Bhushan Singh and the present argument was also advanced that there is numbersuch order in writing on record to show any such authority.
