pradeep sharma case - sc order

8/11/2019 Pradeep Sharma case - SC order

1/10

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO.93 OF 2011

WITHCRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.24767 OF 2013

WITHWRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO.171 OF 2011

Pradeep N. Sharma Petiti!er

"#.

State $ G%&arat ' Or#. Re#p!de!t#

O R D E R

(. I! Writ Petiti! )Cr*.+ N.,- $ /((0 the petiti!er i# #ee1i!2

tra!#$er $ $%r 3rimi!a* 3a#e#0 the detai*# $ 4hi3h are #et %t i!

pra5er 3*a%#e )A+ $ the #aid 4rit petiti!0 $rm State CID t the C6I.

The tra!#$er i# #%2ht ! t4 2r%!d#. The $ir#t 2r%!d i# 7a#ed !

a8erme!t# made at pa2e )F+ $ the #5!p#i# a!d e*a7rati! $ th#e

a8erme!t# i! para2raph# (9 t 9 $ the #aid 4rit petiti!. The

#e3!d 2r%!d i# re2ardi!2 the a**e2ed 8i3timi:ati! $ the petiti!er

7e3a%#e he i# the 7rther $ ;%*dip Sharma0 IPS O$$i3er0 4h i# #tated

t ha8e de$ied 3ertai! a**e2ed i**e2a* i!#tr%3ti!# $ the the! Chie$

Mi!i#ter $ G%&arat )R


2/10

2

. O! (=9=/((0 4he! thi# petiti! 4a# *i#ted 7e$re thi# C%rt0

Mr. C*i! G!#a*8e#0 *ear!ed #e!ir 3%!#e* appeari!2 $r the

petiti!er made the $**4i!2 #tateme!t0 4hi3h 4a# re3rded 75 thi#

C%rt i! it# rder $ the #ame date. Order dated (=9=/(( !eed# t

7e >%ted. It read# a# %!der?

Mr. Colin Gonsalves, learned senior counsel appearing forthe petitioner states that he does not wish to retain theaverment made at page F of the synopsis in its present formand the elaboration of that statement as contained in

paragraphs 15 to 5 of the !rit "etition. #n this connection,he states that he will file a supplementary petition ma$ingsuitable amendments to those averments which tend to castan unintended and wrong information in their present form.

Mr. Colin Gonsalves added that neither he nor the petitionerhas any interest to ma$e the faintest allegation of anypersonal impropriety against the Chief Minister.

-. It i# the 3a#e $ the petiti!er that he ha# made #%ita7*e

ame!dme!t# a# per #tateme!t made 75 hi# 3%!#e* 4herea# it i# the

3a#e $ the re#p!de!t# that 3ertai! a8erme!t# 4hi3h had t 7e

de*eted a# per rder dated (=9=/(( are #ti** ! re3rd. It 4a#

%r2ed 75 Mr. T%#har Mehta0 *ear!ed Add*. S*i3itr Ge!era*0 4h

appear# $r the State $ G%&arat that #i!3e the petiti!er ha# !t

3mp*ied 4ith thi# C%rt@# a78e rder0 the petiti! i# *ia7*e t 7e

re&e3ted ! that 3%!t. We are !t i!3*i!ed t 2 i!t thi# di#p%ted


3/10

3

>%e#ti! 4hether the 3!3er!ed a8erme!t# ha8e 7ee! de*eted r !t

7e3a%#e a# #tated a78e ! (=9=/((0 a 3ate2ri3a* #tateme!t 4a#

made 75 *ear!ed 3%!#e* $r the petiti!er that !either he !r the

petiti!er had a!5 i!tere#t t ma1e the $ai!te#t a**e2ati! $ a!5

per#!a* imprpriet5 a2ai!#t the Chie$ Mi!i#ter. The petiti!er i#0

there$re0 !t e!tit*ed t rai#e a!5 3!te!ti! 7a#ed ! a8erme!t#

made at pa2e )F+ $ the #5!p#i# a!d e*a7rati! $ that #tateme!t i!

para2raph# (9 t 9 $ the #aid 4rit petiti! r at a!5 ther p*a3e i!

the #aid 4rit petiti!. I$ a!5 $ th#e a8erme!t# are #ti** i! the

petiti!0 the5 3a!!t 7e ta1e! i!t 3!#iderati!. It i# !t p##i7*e

$r %# t a**4 the petiti!er@# 3%!#e* t repe! th#e #%7mi##i!#0

a8erme!t# i! re#pe3t $ 4hi3h 4ere a2reed t 7e de*eted. I! 8ie4 $

the a78e #tateme!t made ! (=9=/((0 *ear!ed 3%!#e* $r the

petiti!er addre##ed %# ! the #e3!d 2r%!d i.e. the a**e2ed

8i3timi:ati! $ the petiti!er 7e3a%#e hi# 7rther0 a! IPS O$$i3er ha#

de$ied the a**e2ed i**e2a* i!#tr%3ti!# $ re#p!de!t - a!d 7ia#ed

attit%de $ the State $ G%&arat a2ai!#t the petiti!er ! that 3%!t.

. We ha8e heard *ear!ed #e!ir 3%!#e* $r the petiti!er at 2reat

*e!2th ! the a**e2ed 8i3timi:ati! $ the petiti!er. He ha# ta1e! %#

thr%2h a** the re*e8a!t a8erme!t# made i! the #aid 4rit petiti! a!d


4/10

4

the materia* re*ied %p! 75 the petiti!er i! #%pprt $ hi# 3a#e. We

ha8e a*# heard *ear!ed Add*. S*i3itr 2e!era* $r the State $

G%&arat. We ha8e per%#ed the a$$ida8it i! rep*5 $i*ed ! 7eha*$ $ the

State $ G%&arat a!d the re*e8a!t materia* re*ied %p! 75 the State $

G%&arat. We ha8e a*# 2!e thr%2h the &%d2me!t $ thi# C%rt i!

Sri Jayendra Saraswathy Swamigal (II) T.N. v. State of Tamil

Nadu & Ors.

1

,t 4hi3h %r atte!ti! 4a# dra4! 75 *ear!ed 3%!#e*

$r the petiti!er a!d &%d2me!t $ thi# C%rt i! .!. "a#endran v.

Su$erintendent of %olie, ''I, South *one, 'hennai & Ors.0t

4hi3h %r atte!ti! 4a# dra4! 75 *ear!ed 3%!#e* $r the State $

G%&arat.

9. We ma5 parti3%*ar*5 !te para2raph B $ the a$$ida8it $i*ed 75 the

State $ G%&arat t 4hi3h %r atte!ti! i# dra4! 75 *ear!ed Add*.

S*i3itr Ge!era*. It read# th%#?

%. # state and submit that substantially the petitioner hasbased his petition upon the allegations referable to hisbrother and instances of investigation conducted by hisbrother vi&. 'uldip (harma #"(.

# state and submit that while ma$ing assertions withrespect to the offences investigated by the brother of the

petitioner, the petitioner has suppressed the following

1 (2005) 8 SCC 771

2 (2013) 12 SCC 480


5/10

5

important and crucial facts.

# state and submit that the brother of the petitioner

approached the )onourable Central *dministrative +ribunalrelying upon the very same instances which are mentioned inthe present petition and alleging factual mala fides againstthe Chief Minister and the then Minister of (tate )omes-.+he then irector General of "olice filed a detailed affidavit/ua each and every instances cited by the brother of the

petitioner which are cited by the petitioner in the presentpetition-. * copy of the said affidavit filed by the thenirector General of "olice, Gu0arat (tate before the Central

*dministrative +ribunal dealing with all instances reliedupon by the present petitioner is anneed hereto and ismar$ed as *22346376%.

# respectfully state and submit that it was duty of thepetitioner to point out that after filing of the said affidavitgiving factual chronology with respect to each of theinstances relied upon by his brother which is being reliedupon by the petitioner-, the brother of the petitioner himself

had given up the allegation of factual mala fides which isrecorded in the 0udicial pronouncement of the Central*dministrative +ribunal, "rincipal 8ench, 2ew elhi. #t isthus clear that when the petitioner9s brother himself hasgiven up the said factual mala fides after having received adetailed affidavit of the then irector General of "oliceconcerning the instances relied upon, firstly, the petitionerought not to have referred to the same, and secondly, heought to have brought to the notice of this )onourable court

that his brother has already given up the said allegation inhis own case before the Central *dministrative +ribunal.:

B. The a78e a##erti! made ! a$$ida8it ha# !t 7ee! de!ied 75

*ear!ed 3%!#e* $r the petiti!er. Si!3e ;%*dip Sharma ha# him#e*$

2i8e! %p $a3t%a*=per#!a* mala fides0 i! %r pi!i!0 the petiti!er

3a!!t re*5 %p! them t #%7#ta!tiate hi# 3a#e $ tra!#$er.


6/10

6

. I! 8ie4 $ the a78e a!d ha8i!2 3!#idered the pra5er $ the

petiti!er $r tra!#$er i! it# prper per#pe3ti8e i! the *i2ht $ re*e8a!t

p*eadi!2# $ the partie#0 4e are $ the pi!i! that ! 3a#e $r tra!#$er

$ 3a#e# t the C6I i# made %t 75 the petiti!er. A**e2ati!# $ 7ia#

are !t #%7#ta!tiated. The #aid pra5er0 there$re0 4i** ha8e t 7e

re&e3ted a!d i# re&e3ted.

. We m%#t !te here that d%ri!2 the pe!de!35 $ the #aid 4rit

petiti!0 the petiti!er $i*ed Crimi!a* Mi#3. Petiti! N.B $ /(-

a!d pra5ed $r the $**4i!2 re*ie$#?

a- *llow the instant application;>5 and other applicablelaws by (hri 2arendra Modi, (hri *mit (hah and anyother such person

pradeep sharma case - sc order

Documents