ORDER : The petitioner Shri S.R. Hiremath being the Honorary Executive Director of Samaja Parivarthana Samudhaya Asha Deep is the original petitioner before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in W.P (Civil) No.562/2009. A person aggrieved by the action or inaction on the part of the CBI, would naturally be free to ventilate their grievances in an appropriate proceeding before the appropriate forum. Accordingly, the present petitioner has approached this court by filing a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside the order passed by the XLVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases at Bangalore City (CCH-47) in Spl.C.C.No.116/2012 dated 08.10.2015 discharging Accused No.2/Smt. G. Lakshmi Aruna from the trial and further seeking to direct Accused No.2 to face trial for offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 420, 379, 409, 447, 468, 471, 477-A of IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of the PC Act, 1988. 2. The factual matrix of the case is, R.C.No.18(A)/2011/CBI/ACB/BLR came to be registered by the first respondent/CBI, Anti Corruption Bureau, Bangalore, in pursuance of the orders passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court of India in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.7366-7367/2010 and connected matters, in which the first respondent/CBI- ACB was directed to investigate the illegalities committed by various persons in the matter relating to Mining lease No.2434 of M/s. Associated Mining Company (‘M/s. AMC’ for short), to which the second respondent/Smt. G. Lakshmi Aruna, W/o. Gali Janardhan Reddy happens to be the partner along with her husband G. Janardhan Reddy who is arraigned as Accused No.1 in the charge-sheeted case. The second respondent herein is arraigned as Accused No.2 in the charge-sheeted case and so also in the case in Spl.CC.No.116/2012 which is pending for trial against the accused. During investigation, oral as well as documentary evidence have been secured by the Investigating Agency in support of the allegations mentioned in the substance of the charge-sheet laid by the I.O. and also recorded the statement of witnesses who have been cited as CW-1 to CW-310. They are the witnesses who have been cited in the charge-sheet in R.C.No.18(A)/2011 registered by the first respondent/CBI-ACB, Bangalore. 3. They are the witnesses who have been cited in the charge-sheet in R.C.No.18(A)/2011 registered by the first respondent/CBI-ACB, Bangalore. 3. The nutshell of the prosecution case reveals that the petitioner being aggrieved by the rampant illegal mining operations in the State of Karnataka, especially in the encroached forest areas, had preferred a writ petition W.P.(Civil) No.562/2009 under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India seeking to direct the first respondent/CBI to investigate and to file a report relating to the illegal mining operations. Based upon the direction issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the aforesaid writ petition, the respondent/CBI-ACB has investigated the case relating to Mining lease No.2434 standing in the name of M/s. AMC to which the second respondent Smt. G. Lakshmi Aruna happens to be a partner along with her husband Shri G. Janardhan Reddy who is arraigned as the first accused. After the charge sheet was laid and the matter was set down for framing of charge, the second respondent who is arraigned as Accused No.2 had filed an application under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C., i.e., I.A.No.21 seeking to discharge her from the offences which were lugged against the accused. Accused No.2 who is arraigned as Respondent No.2 was the partner of the firm and in her capacity, had signed cheques which were approved by Accused No.1/G. Janardhan Reddy. She was thus managing the affairs of the said company. That Accused No.2 had also actively participated in the affairs of the company along with Accused No.1 Janardhan Reddy, despite of which Accused No.2 has been discharged at the stage of framing of charges, by the Trial Court. Therefore, this petition is filed seeking for intervention of the impugned order passed by the Trial Court in Spl.CC No.116/2012 dated 8.10.2015 in respect of application filed by Respondent No.2/Accused No.2. 4. Heard the learned counsel Shri Monesh Kumar for the petitioner and the learned Spl. PP Shri P. Prasanna Kumar for Respondent No.1/CBI-ACB and so also learned Senior counsel Shri Sandesh J. Chouta appearing for the learned counsel Shri R.P. Chandrashekara for Respondent No.2, in this matter, at length. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the impugned order passed by the Court of the XLVI Addl. PP Shri P. Prasanna Kumar for Respondent No.1/CBI-ACB and so also learned Senior counsel Shri Sandesh J. Chouta appearing for the learned counsel Shri R.P. Chandrashekara for Respondent No.2, in this matter, at length. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the impugned order passed by the Court of the XLVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases at Bangalore City (CCH-47) in Spl.C.C.No.116/2012 dated 08.10.2015 discharging Accused No.2 from the offences reflected in the charge-sheet, which is stated above. But the facts and circumstances of the case which are found in the charge-sheet laid by the I.O. reveals that there are sufficient materials against Respondent No.2/accused. Despite of which, the Special Judge in Spl.CC No.116/2012 allowed I.A.No.21 and discharged Accused No.2 from the alleged offences. The Trial Court while discharging Accused No.2 has relied upon the witness statements recorded by the I.O. during the course of investigation and has come to the conclusion that none of the witnesses whose statements have been recorded have implicated Accused No.2 in any manner and has thus discharged Accused No.2. However, the charge-sheet laid by the I.O. against the accused before the Committal court reveals that there are sufficient evidence to lay charge-sheet against Accused No.2 Smt. G. Lakshmi Aruna. The I.O. has recorded the statement of several witnesses as contemplated under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. Though there are sufficient materials available on record against the involvement of Accused No.2 and despite the fraudulent transactions and affairs of the AMC Mining Company, the Trial Court had erroneously passed an order by allowing I.A.No.21/2015, thus discharging her from the alleged offences. 6. The second limb of the argument that has been advanced by the learned counsel is that the Trial Court has merely relied upon certain stray statements of certain witnesses cited in the charge-sheet stating that policy matters were decided by Accused No.1 G. Janardhana Reddy, payments were decided by Accused No.1, vouchers and verifications, participation and discussions in the meeting were also held at the instance of Accused No.1. Further, after all approval from Accused No.1, this Accused No.2 G. Lakshmi Aruna would subscribe her signature in the cheque. Further, after all approval from Accused No.1, this Accused No.2 G. Lakshmi Aruna would subscribe her signature in the cheque. It is very much clear that there was a role made by this Accused No.2 in respect of the process of managing the affairs of the said M/s. AMC and she had as much role and responsibility as that of Accused No.1/Gali Janardhan Reddy and by no stretch of imagination, it could be stated that there were no incriminating materials against Accused No.2 to try the offences lugged against the accused. But accused No.2 has been discharged from the charges at the stage of framing of charge, which is bad in law. Therefore, learned counsel contends that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court in Spl. CC.No.116/2012 dated 8.10.2015 deserves to be quashed/set-aside. 7. Lastly, learned counsel submits that the Trial Court has lost sight of the fact relating to the role made by this accused and so also certain material documents which were collected by the I.O. during the course of investigation. During investigation, the Investigating Agency have collected enormous documents which unerringly suggest that Accused No.2 was involved in export of iron ore without having any valid permit, committing theft of iron ore from the forest area, that too reserved area. This accused also had participated with Accused No.1/Gali Janardhan Reddy and is also having criminal conspiracy with the first accused to commit the alleged offences. Therefore, the materials collected by the I.O. in respect of the offences under the IPC such as 120B, Section 379 and 409, are sufficient to proceed against Accused No.2 also in framing of a charge and so also facing of trial with other accused for offences under Section 471 of the IPC. Further, all documents pertaining to books of accounts of the company to which accused no.2 was the partner were falsified willfully and deliberately to portray the same as genuine documents to the concerned documents. Hence, the documents produced and also secured by the I.O. during the course of investigation were sufficient to prove the ingredients of the alleged offences in order to lay the charge-sheet against the accused. The Accused No.2 is alleged to have committed offences under Section 477-A of the IPC and so also offences under Section 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988. The Accused No.2 is alleged to have committed offences under Section 477-A of the IPC and so also offences under Section 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988. But the Trial Court, looking into the substance of the charge-sheet relating to the materials collected by the I.O., has felt that I.A.No.21 filed under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. requires to be allowed and has hence discharged her from the alleged offences, which is challenged under this petition. But the fact remains that there was a role made by this accused No.2 along with other accused and particularly Accused No.1/G. Janardhan Reddy, as there was some discussion between Accused No.1 and Accused No.2 and there was a meeting of minds. But, without looking into the materials collected by the I.O. consisting of statement of witnesses and documents secured during investigation but only on the premise that Accused No.2 is a member of the family involved in crime, she has been discharged from the offences, which impugned order cannot stand the test of law. Therefore, it requires for intervention in this petition by exercising power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to set aside the impugned order passed by the Trial Court in Spl.CC.No.116/2012 dated 08.10.2015. 8. Further, the learned counsel has, in conformity with the oral and documentary evidence in support of the allegations made against Smt. G. Lakshmi Aruna who is arraigned as Accused No.2, has put forth the same in a Tabular column at Paragraph 7 of the petition, which has been stated in detail. The counsel has addressed his arguments in conformity with the allegations as regards conspiracy with a dishonest intention to cheat the Government of Karnataka and so also has produced documentary evidence in terms of the material collected by the I.O. during the course of investigation in respect of the Mining Lease No.2434 standing in the name of M/s. AMC of which the second respondent is a partner, and these contain the intimation given by the previous partners regarding transfer of rights to accused no.1/Janardhan Reddy and accused no.2/G. Lakshmi Aruna. The oral evidence in terms of material documents have been secured by the I.O. during the course of investigation and so also recorded the statements of CW-24, CW-26 and even the statement of CW-27 and all these material evidence secured by the I.O. during the course of investigation reveals that Accused No.2 was also having a pivotal role to commit the alleged offences with her husband Accused No.1/G. Janardhan Reddy who is facing trial along with the other accused. But the bone of contention urged in support of Accused No.2 is that she was only a partner in M/s. AMC. But she was not responsible for the day-to-day affairs and the act alleged against the second accused could not be looked into as standalone acts, as she had not actively participated in the company operations and as such, sought for discharge. But the contention of the learned counsel is that the Trial Court has not considered the material documents which were secured by the I.O. during the course of investigation but has only taken into consideration certain stray statement of witnesses which were recorded by the I.O. during the course of investigation and allowed I.A.No.21 for discharge and accordingly, Accused No.2 was discharged from the criminal charges at the stage of framing of charge against the accused, which is patently erroneous and it requires for intervention and consequently the impugned order passed by the Trial Court in Spl. CC No.116/2012 dated 8.10.2015 requires to be set aside. 9. On all these premise, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to allow the petition and consequently to set aside the impugned order passed by the Court of the XLVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases at Bangalore City (CCH-47) in Spl.C.C.No.116/2012 dated 08.10.2015 discharging Accused No.2 from the alleged offences. Further, he seeks to direct her to face trial for the offences which were lugged against her under the IPC, 1860 specifically and so also for offences punishable under the PC Act, 1988. 10. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.957/2017 (M.E.Shivalingamurthy vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, Bengaluru). The appellant – M.E.Shivalingamurthy who is arraigned as Accused No.3 in Spl.C.C.No.116/2012 had filed an application in I.A.30 under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. seeking discharge. 10. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.957/2017 (M.E.Shivalingamurthy vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, Bengaluru). The appellant – M.E.Shivalingamurthy who is arraigned as Accused No.3 in Spl.C.C.No.116/2012 had filed an application in I.A.30 under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. seeking discharge. The said application came to be allowed by the trial Court. Thereafter, the order passed by the trial Court came to be setaside by the High Court stating that the matter requires intervention. Against the order passed by the High Court, Accused No.3 preferred the above criminal appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 07.01.2020, dismissed the appeal and upheld the order passed by the High Court setting aside the order passed by the trial Court allowing the application filed by the appellant seeking discharge. In view of the fact that Accused No.3 in the very same case in Spl.C.C.No.116/2012 who was previously discharged from the offences leveled against him by the order of the Trial Court has now been directed to face trial along with the other accused by an order of the High Court, which has as well be confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the learned counsel contends that the same ideology be adopted in the present case on hand and on this ground, the second respondent/second accused be directed to face trial for the alleged offences by allowing the present petition and setting aside the order dated 08.10.2015 of the Trial Court in Spl.CC.No.116/2012. 11. The learned Senior counsel Shri Sandesh J. Chouta appearing for the learned counsel for Respondent No.2/accused No.2 has taken me through the materials collected by the I.O. during the course of investigation and so also the Senior counsel has also banked upon Annexure-R1 which is the copy of I.A.No.242/2015, Annexure-R2 which is the copy of I.A.No.243/2015, which has been filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in W.P(Civil) No.562/2009. In addition to that, Annexure-“R3” which is a copy of the affidavit filed by CBI dated 3.8.2017, Annexure-“R4” which is the copy of the order dated 9.8.2017 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India inclusive of Annexure-“R5” which is the copy of the order dated 18.04.2013 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. In addition to that, Annexure-“R3” which is a copy of the affidavit filed by CBI dated 3.8.2017, Annexure-“R4” which is the copy of the order dated 9.8.2017 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India inclusive of Annexure-“R5” which is the copy of the order dated 18.04.2013 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Learned Senior counsel Shri Sandesh J. Chouta for Respondent No.2 has taken me through the objections filed in this petition in terms of response, that the petitioner S.R. Hiremath is neither the informant/complainant, victim or witness to the present lis and would not come under the category of an aggrieved party. The petitioner is a stranger to the present proceedings and he has not initiated the same towards meeting the ends of justice, though he is a right spirited person to file a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. But has done so by being a vexatious and only in the guise of invoking the inherent power of High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. But the petitioner in this petition at paragraph 7 though has specified the allegations against Smt. G. Lakshmi Aruna arraigned as Accused No.2, but the allegations do not meet those points, which clearly demonstrate that there are no grounds to entertain the petition. The main allegation is relating to conspiracy and also with a dishonest intention to cheat the Government of Karnataka in the matter of transferring/taking over the lease-hold rights of mining lease No.2434 of M/s. Associated Mining Company was taken over by Shri Gali Janardhan Reddy who is arraigned as Accused No.1 and Smt. Lakshmi Aruna who is arraigned as Accused No.2. But the witness CW-24/Shri D. Hanumantha Raya who is cited as a witness, has stated of the official acts done by him relating to the retirement of the earlier partners and the induction of the new partners and further states regarding renewal of mining lease, all in respect of M/s. AMC. But this witness does not state in his statement as regards implicating Accused No.2 in any manner but it is specifically stated that this witness does not implicate Smt. Lakshmi Aruna who is arraigned as Accused No.2. But this witness does not state in his statement as regards implicating Accused No.2 in any manner but it is specifically stated that this witness does not implicate Smt. Lakshmi Aruna who is arraigned as Accused No.2. Hence, in the entire statement of this witness, there is nothing inculpatory to inculpate Accused No.2 with regard to having a specific role by her for obtaining the partnership of the said firm by way of transfer of the lease or in the grant or renewal of the mining lease of the said firm. 12. In respect of the conspiracy, CW-26/Shri D.R. Veeranna has also given a statement during the course of investigation. But the statement of this witness only mentions the procedure for grant of mining lease. This witness also did not implicate Accused No.2 Smt. Lakshmi Aruna in any manner that she had hatched a criminal conspiracy with her husband to commit the alleged offences. In the entire statement of this witness, there is nothing to inculpate Accused No.2 Smt. Lakshmi Aruna with regard to having a vital role of being in partnership with Accused No.1 and having obtained the mining lease. Shri K.M. Vishwanath who is also a witness, has also given a statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. stating that the alleged force and inducement for securing the firm was used by Accused No.1 namely Gali Janardhan Reddy, to get in as new partners of the firm. But in the entire statement of this witness, there is no whisper or any allegation made against accused no.2 with regard to any force, threat or inducement being made to take hold of the firm. But all the incriminating materials are attributed against accused No.1 alone. Similarly, allegation No.2 is as regards taking over the mines illegally stating that Shri Gali Janardhan Reddy/Accused - 1 and Smt. Lakshmi Aruna/Accused - 2 have not carried out any mining operations in the lease-hold area of M.L.No.2434 of M/s.Associated Mining Company (for short ‘AMC’) and they carried illegal mining operations in other mines located in the forest area, without any authority. As regards the said allegation No.2, CW-20/Dushyant Reddy had given his statement before the I.O. during the course of investigation. In the entire statement of this witness, there is no allegation of any role played by this accused no.2 Lakshmi Aruna. As regards the said allegation No.2, CW-20/Dushyant Reddy had given his statement before the I.O. during the course of investigation. In the entire statement of this witness, there is no allegation of any role played by this accused no.2 Lakshmi Aruna. This witness has given statement as per Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. CW-27/Ananth Sena Reddy and so also CW-40/Venkata Siva Prasad, CW-41/Veerabhaskar Reddy, CW-48/Mulagunda Pardhan Saradhi, CW-76/Rajashekar Chunduru, CW-95/P.K. Murgan, CW-63/Sunil Kumar Gupta, CW-73/Sarvanan, CW-140/Raghavendra and CW-213/G. Veeresh, all these witnesses have given their statements before the Investigating Agency during the course of investigation. But on a cursory glance of the statements of these witnesses, nothing is mentioned specifically as to the role of Accused No.2/Lakshmi Aruna that she had a pivotal role with Accused No.1/Gali Janardhan Reddy in respect of the offences lugged against her. But the witnesses have been cited in the charge-sheet where the I.O. said to have recorded the statements during the course of investigation and their statements have been included in the charge-sheet and laid the charge-sheet against the accused persons. Any of the statements of the said witnesses do not point out to the role of Accused No.2 as regards having been involved in Allegation No.2. Allegation No.3 is as regards the iron ore illegally extracted from the surrounding areas of LMC and M/s. Dalmia Mines were sold by Accused No.1 Gali Janardhan Reddy to various buyers including M/s. J.S.W. Steel Ltd. and received the proceeds to the account of M/s. AMC held with SBI, Bellary Main Branch. And that Accused Nos.1 and 2 also utilized the said amount of more than Rs.160 crores which was credited to their account for their personal benefits and they enjoyed the benefits of illegal mining carried on by them with the help of their associates. CW-25/Phani Kishore and CW-4/T. Sreenivasa Rao were examined as regards Allegation No.3. The said witness CW-25 is by avocation an Accounts Manager of AMC and is also one of the most important witnesses for the prosecution. His tenor of allegations includes working of the AMC firm like its functions, account transactions and as such. He has specifically stated in one of his 161 statements that any policy matters of the firm was decided by Gali Janardhan Reddy; any decision to make any payment to any party was also decided by Gali Janardhan Reddy. His tenor of allegations includes working of the AMC firm like its functions, account transactions and as such. He has specifically stated in one of his 161 statements that any policy matters of the firm was decided by Gali Janardhan Reddy; any decision to make any payment to any party was also decided by Gali Janardhan Reddy. Further, Accused No.1 used to approve the vouchers after verification with the rates decided at various meetings with the parties. On seeing the approval made on the voucher printed from tally software, Smt. G. Lakshmi Aruna used to sign the cheques. Further, Accused No.1 having the role in all the mining iron ore business, any information relating to the firm should be brought to the knowledge of accused no.1/Gali Janardhan Reddy who is required to face trial. But accused No.2/G. Lakshmi Aruna is a partner of the firm but any witness does not speak anything implicating Accused No.2. 13. Even though it cannot be straightaway inferred that she was just a sleeping partner and she did not participate in the business of the firm, but every role has been made by her husband Gali Janardhan Reddy who is arraigned as Accused No.1. It is specifically taking into consideration the material on record, Accused No.2 G. Lakshmi Aruna cannot be held even vicariously liable for alleged illegal acts of others which even finds place in the material secured by the Investigating Agency during the course of investigation. The charge-sheet has been laid by the I.O. But it is a bulky charge-sheet consisting of several witnesses. None of the witnesses have specifically stated to incriminate the Accused No.2 G. Lakshmi Aruna having a pivotal role and also direct involvement in the alleged transaction. But the allegation made against Accused No.1/Gali Janardhan Reddy are forceful and are attributed only against Accused No.1 who is none other than the husband of this accused Lakshmi Aruna. None of the witnesses have specifically stated to incriminate the Accused No.2 G. Lakshmi Aruna having a pivotal role and also direct involvement in the alleged transaction. But the allegation made against Accused No.1/Gali Janardhan Reddy are forceful and are attributed only against Accused No.1 who is none other than the husband of this accused Lakshmi Aruna. But at a cursory glance of the statements of CW-20, CW-27, CW-40, CW-41, CW-48, CW-76, CW-95, CW-63, CW-73, CW-140 and CW-213 out of the witnesses who have been cited in the charge-sheet, it reveals that the said witnesses were engaged in excavating iron ore and transporting the same to stack yard, in providing machinery for mining operations at the request of Janardhan Reddy and deployed machinery at the places shown by his representatives, some were production Manager, Project Manager and carried out mining operations in different sites as per instructions, etc. Though these witnesses have been cited by the prosecution as witnesses in the charge-sheet but the allegation in respect of the accused Lakshmi Arun is the vital, is lacking in the case of the prosecution. None of the afore-cited witnesses on the part of the prosecution have implicated Accused No.2 G. Lakshmi Aruna nor they have made any reference of her name and so also some vital activities done by her in respect of the allegations made against the accused in the charge-sheet laid by the Investigating Agency. All these material documents have been considered by the Trial Court in Spl.CC No.116/2012 and thereby has allowed I.A.No.21 by order dated 8.10.2015 by discharging the accused-G. Lakshmi Aruna from the alleged offences. 14. Lastly, learned Senior counsel for Respondent No.2 has referred to the affidavit filed by the CBI, who is arraigned as Respondent No.1 in this matter. During the course of trial of the case, I.As were filed by each of the accused in the Trial Court. That is before the XLVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, seeking discharge from the cases. Accused/No.2 Smt. G. Lakshmi Aruna as well, had filed I.A.No.21 under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. for seeking discharge. The CBI has examined the impugned order passed by the Trial Court dated 8.10.2015 in respect of discharging Accused No.2 Smt. Lakshmi Aruna and Accused No.3/M.E. Shivalinga Murthy. The case was examined thoroughly and analysed at various levels. Accused/No.2 Smt. G. Lakshmi Aruna as well, had filed I.A.No.21 under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. for seeking discharge. The CBI has examined the impugned order passed by the Trial Court dated 8.10.2015 in respect of discharging Accused No.2 Smt. Lakshmi Aruna and Accused No.3/M.E. Shivalinga Murthy. The case was examined thoroughly and analysed at various levels. But the discharge of Accused No.2 was only on the basis that she was a sleeping partner and she used to sign the documents on the instruction of Accused No.1. The specific overt act attributed against Accused No.2 are not spoken by any of the witnesses including the statements of CW- 20, 24, 26, 27, 40, 41, 48, 76, 95, 63, 73, 140 and 213. Though these witnesses have given their statements before the Investigating Agency during the course of investigation, they have not revealed any material incriminating against Accused No.2 - G. Lakshmi Aruna to reveal that there is a specific role made by her with Accused No.1 who is none other than her husband. But the aforesaid witnesses have not spelt out anything about the involvement of Accused No.2 in the mining business of M/s. Associated Mining Company. Accused No.2 has no specific role in the affairs of the company. But all the policy matters of the firm were decided by her husband Gali Janardhan Reddy who is arraigned as Accused No.1, which has already been stated supra. But this Accused No.2 was only subscribing her signature on the cheques after the same were approved by Gali Janardhan Reddy. The competent authority of the CBI, noticing the grounds of discharge as stated by filing an application under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. vis-à-vis evidence available, is also of the opinion that there is no specific evidence to state that Accused No.2 had participated in the affairs of the firm. Therefore, there is no material to state that she had done the illegal acts as narrated in the materials collected by the I.O. and so also substance of the charge-sheet. Even it cannot be established that Accused No.2 illegally sold the iron ore. But the evidence as regards illegal mining it also does not find place in the record in order to establish the guilt of the accused but she was only a sleeping partner attending the activities of the company to attract a prima facie case against her to proceed further. But the evidence as regards illegal mining it also does not find place in the record in order to establish the guilt of the accused but she was only a sleeping partner attending the activities of the company to attract a prima facie case against her to proceed further. This affidavit finds place in the record and banked upon by the learned counsel for Accused No.2/Respondent No.2. On all these grounds, the learned Senior counsel seeks for dismissal of the petition filed by the petitioner Shri S.R. Hiremath, though he is the right spirited person to challenge the allegation of mining operations in Karnataka, that too in Bellary area. But there is no specific material or any incriminating material attributed against Accused No.2 - Smt. Lakshmi Aruna who is stated to have participated in the conspiracy with dishonest intention to cheat the Government of Karnataka as contended by the counsel for the petitioners. On all these premise, seeking for dismissal of the petition, as there is no merit for intervention of the order passed by the Court of the XLVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI in Spl.CC No.116/2012 dated 8.10.2015 and thereby praying to confirm the said order of discharge. 15. The learned counsel for Respondent No.2 has relied on the following citations, in support of his case: (1) SIMRANJIT SINGH MANN VS UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER – (1992) 4 SUPREME COURT CASE 635:- 3. On 19th August, 1992, the petitioner filed this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution complaining of violation of Articles 22, 21 and 14 of the Constitution. The locus pleaded in paragraph 2 of the petition is as under: “The petitioner is the President of Akali Dal (M) and is an acknowledged political leader and, therefore, is vitally interested in upholding the rule of law and ensuring that the same is applied equally with fairness, equity and good consciousness to all”. The main thrust of the petitioner's case is that once the Designated Court's finding that no case for conviction under Sections 3 and 4 of the TADA Act was made out was affirmed by this Court, this Court had no jurisdiction to confirm the death sentence as the reference for confirmation could only be disposed of by the High Court of Maharashtra. This Court, avers the petitioner, deviated from this course in the case of the two convicts thereby violating the rule of law as well as Articles 22, 21 and 14 of the Constitution. Secondly, contends the petitioner, if the case came to be decided by this Court under the TADA Act, since the constitutional validity of that law was under challenge, it was incumbent on this Court to await the court's adjudication on that point before disposing of the death reference. The petitioner has also questioned this Court's view that the case belongs to the rarest to rare category and hence the sentence of death was justified. On this line of reasoning the petitioner seeks certain declarations, namely, (a) that the trial of the two convicts was bad in law and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 22 of the Constitution as the Designated Court had no jurisdiction to proceed with the case on its holding that no offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the TADA Act was made out (b) the reference to the Supreme Court was bad in law and violative of Articles 14 and 22 of the Constitution and (c) the sentence imposed by the Designated Court and confirmed by this Court was bad in law and violative of Articles 21, 22 and 14 of the Constitution. 7. Ordinarily, the aggrieved party which is affected by any order has the right to seek redress by questioning the legality, validity or correctness of the order, unless such party is a minor, an insane person or is suffering from any other disability which the law recognises as sufficient to permit another person, e.g. next friend, to move the Court on his behalf. If a guardian or a next friend initiates proceedings for and on behalf of such a disabled aggrieved party, it is in effect proceedings initiated by the party aggrieved and not by a total stranger who has no direct personal stake in the outcome thereof. In the present case no fundamental right of the petitioner before us is violated; if at all the case sought to be made out is that the fundamental rights of the two convicts have been violated. In the present case no fundamental right of the petitioner before us is violated; if at all the case sought to be made out is that the fundamental rights of the two convicts have been violated. The two convicts could, if so minded, have raised the contention in the earlier proceedings but a third party, a total stranger to the trial commenced against the two convicts, cannot be permitted to question the correctness of the conviction recorded against them. If that were permitted any and every person could challenge convictions recorded day in and day out by courts even if the persons convicted do not desire to do so and are inclined to acquiesce in the decision. If the aggrieved party invokes the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, that may stand on a different footing as in the case of A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak and Anr.. However, we should not be understood to say that in all such cases the aggrieved party has a remedy under Article 32 of the Constitution. Unless an aggrieved party is under some disability recognised by law, it would be unsafe and hazardous to allow any third party to question the decision against him. Take for example a case where a person accused under Section 302, I.P.C. is convicted for a lesser offence under Section 324, I.P.C. The accused is quite satisfied with the decision but a third party questions it under Article 32 and succeeds. The conviction is set aside and a fresh trial commenced ends up in the conviction of the accused under Section 302, I.P.C. The person to suffer for the unilateral act of the third party would by the accused! Many such situations can be pointed out to emphasise the hazard involved if such third party's unsolicited action is entertained. Cases which have ended in conviction by the apex court after a full gamut of litigation are not comparable with preventive detention cases where a friend or next of kin is permitted to seek a writ of Habeas Corpus. We are, therefore, satisfied that neither under the provisions of the Code nor under any other statute is a third party stranger permitted to question the correctness of the conviction and sentence imposed by the Court after a regular trial. On first principles we find it difficult to accept Mr. We are, therefore, satisfied that neither under the provisions of the Code nor under any other statute is a third party stranger permitted to question the correctness of the conviction and sentence imposed by the Court after a regular trial. On first principles we find it difficult to accept Mr. Sodhi's contention that such a public interest litigation commenced by a leader of a recognised political party who has a genuine interest in the future of the convicts should be entertained. In S.P. Gupta v. Union of India [1981] Suppl. SCC 87, Bhagwati, J. observed: “But we must be careful to see that the member of the public, who approaches the court in cases of this kind, is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private profit or political motivation or other oblique consideration. The Court must not allow its process to be abused by politicians and others....” These observations were made while discussing the question of 'locus standi' in public interest litigation. These words of caution were uttered while expanding the scope of the 'locus standi' rule. These words should deter us from entertaining this petition. This accords with the view expressed by this Court in M. Krishna Swami v. Union of India and Ors. . 2) R. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI VS STATE OF KERALA – 1995 CRI .L.J. 1244 4. … Sections 238 and 239 are a complete code in the matter of the procedure to be followed for the purpose of discharging the accused or for framing the charge in any warrant case instituted on a police report. A third party cannot have any say in the matter. The question of any third party being permitted to take part in the proceedings while the court considers the materials on record in order to ascertain whether a charge should be framed or the accused should be discharged does not therefore arise. 5. The question whether a third party can be permitted to challenge the correctness of the conviction and sentence imposed by a court after a regular trial came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Simranjit Singh Mann v. Union of India, (1992) 4 SCC 653 :(1993 Cri LJ 37). The Supreme Court held that neither under the provisions of the Code nor under any other statute is a third party stranger permitted to question the correctness of the conviction. The Supreme Court held that neither under the provisions of the Code nor under any other statute is a third party stranger permitted to question the correctness of the conviction. In that connection the Supreme Court referred to the following observation in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, 1981 Supp SCC 87 : ( AIR 1982 SC 149 ). In the light of the observations of the Supreme Court aforementioned and on a proper understanding of the provision contained in Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure there can be no doubt that Shri Achuthanandan, the Leader of the Opposition in the Kerala Legislative Assembly has no locus standi to take part in the proceeding before the Special Judge while considering the question of discharge under Section 239 of the Code. The Special Judge has therefore committed an illegality in holding that an opportunity can be given to Shri Achuthanandan for being heard while hearing the case under Section 239, Criminal Procedure Code. Annexure-I order is therefore unsustainable. 3) RAJIV RANJAN SINGH 'LALAN' & ANR VS UNION OF INDIA & ORS - (2006) 6 SUPREME COURT CASE 613 C. Constitution of India – Art.32 – PIL – Locus standi/Standing – Criminal matters – Standing to question conduct of criminal proceedings – Fodder Scam cases – Held (per majority: per Balakrishnan, J.), it is for the prosecution to prove its case and for the accused (Respondents 4 and 5) to prove that they did not have disproportionate income as alleged by the prosecution – It is a criminal litigation exclusively between Respondents 4 and 5 and the State – Nobody else has got any right to interfere, especially by way of PIL or else such PIL would only hamper the course of justice and may cause prejudice to accused denying them a fair trial, and may even damage prosecution case – Moreover, on facts though petitioners have alleged a series of irregularities, they are not supported by basic facts having a solid foundation – Held (per majority: per Lakshmanan, J.). PIL is totally foreign to pending criminal proceedings – Petitioners are waging a political battle against Respondents 4 and 5 through medium of PIL, which is impermissible – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Ss. 27, 5 and 13(1)(e) – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Ss. 403, 397 to 399 and 401. PIL is totally foreign to pending criminal proceedings – Petitioners are waging a political battle against Respondents 4 and 5 through medium of PIL, which is impermissible – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Ss. 27, 5 and 13(1)(e) – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Ss. 403, 397 to 399 and 401. The Judgments of the Court were delivered by K.G. BALAKRISHNAN J, - These writ petitions are filed as Public Interest Litigation by the two petitioners herein who were Members of the Parliament at the time of filing the petitions. Respondent nos. 4 and 5 were formerly Chief Ministers of the State of Bihar. It is alleged by the petitioners that they filed writ petitions before the High Court of Patna alleging large-scale defalcation of public funds and falsification of accounts involving hundreds of crores of rupees in the Department of Animal Husbandary in the State of Bihar and pursuant to these allegations, several cases were registered by the Police and investigation of these cases was later handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation. In an earlier petition filed before this Court on 19.3.1996, this Court directed that the investigation shall be monitored by the Division Bench of the Patna High Court and in that Order, it was indicated that the CBI Officers entrusted with the investigation shall inform the Chief Justice of Patna High Court from time to time of the progress made in the investigation and if they needed any directions in the matter of conducting the investigation, obtain them from him and it was also said that the learned Chief Justice may either post the matter for directions before a Bench presided over by him or constitute any other appropriate Bench. It was also directed that the State Government shall co-operate in assigning adequate number of Special judges to deal with the cases expeditiously so that no evidence may be lost. 21. The learned Counsel for the respondent nos. 4 and 5 submitted that the original petition is a politically motivated move to malign respondent nos. 4 and 5 and this sort of public interest litigation should not be entertained by the Court and placed reliance on the series of decisions passed by this Court. It may be noticed that the case nos. 5/98 has been filed against the respondent nos. 4 and 5 and this sort of public interest litigation should not be entertained by the Court and placed reliance on the series of decisions passed by this Court. It may be noticed that the case nos. 5/98 has been filed against the respondent nos. 4 and 5 alleging that they had amassed wealth disproportionate to their known sources of income while holding the post of Chief Minister of the State of Bihar. Both the petitioners are not in any way connected with this case. They are not de-facto complainant in this case. It is for the prosecution to prove its case and the respondent nos. 4 and 5 to deny that the allegations are not true and they did not have the disproportionate income as alleged by the prosecution. It is a criminal litigation exclusively between respondent nos. 4 and 5 and the State. It is also important to note that in a case of this nature, nobody else has got any right to interfere especially by way of public interest litigation or else such public interest litigation would only hamper the course of justice and may cause prejudice to the accused by denying a fair trial. In this case, as early as 2004, 132 witnesses were examined on the side of the prosecution and 93 witnesses were examined on the defence side. Arguments of the prosecution were over as early as in 14.7.2004 and the defence arguments continued upto 19.7.2004. Because of the present public interest litigation, the trial could not be conducted. It is equally important to note that though the petitioners have alleged series of irregularities, but they are not supported by basic facts having solid foundation. 37(c). It is thus clear the above judgment that once a charge-sheet is filed in the competent court after completion of the investigation, the process of monitoring by the monitoring Court for the purpose of making the CBI and other investigative agencies concerned perform their function of investigating into the offences concerned comes to an end; and thereafter it is only the court in which the chargesheet is filed which is to deal with all matters relating to the trial of the accused, including matters falling within the scope of Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 70. In SCC para 92 of the said judgment the concept of PIL has been explained. 70. In SCC para 92 of the said judgment the concept of PIL has been explained. Any member of the public having sufficient interest can maintain an action for judicial redressal for public injury arising from breach of duty or violation of the Constitution. This is absolutely essential for maintaining the rule of law, furthering the cause of justice and achieving the constitutional goals, subject to a caveat which states that the member of the public who approaches by way of PIL should be acting bona fide and not for personal gain, private profit or political motivation. 4) YOGESH @ SACHIN JAGDISH JOSHI VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRAV - (2008) 10 SUPREME COURT CASES 394 15. Chapter XVIII of the Code lays down the procedure for trial before the Court of Sessions, pursuant to an order of commitment under Section 209 of the Code. Section 227 contemplates the circumstances whereunder there could be a discharge of an accused at a stage anterior in point of time to framing of charge under Section 228. It provides that upon consideration of the record of the case, the documents submitted with the police report and after hearing the accused and the prosecution, the Court is expected, nay bound to decide whether there is "sufficient ground" to proceed against the accused and as a consequence thereof either discharge the accused or proceed to frame charge against him. 16. It is trite that the words "not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused" appearing in the Section postulate exercise of judicial mind on the part of the Judge to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. However, in assessing this fact, the Judge has the power to sift and weigh the material for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to determine a prima facie case depends upon the facts of each case and in this regard it is neither feasible nor desirable to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large, however, if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him gives rise to suspicion only as distinguished from grave suspicion, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. By and large, however, if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him gives rise to suspicion only as distinguished from grave suspicion, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. At this stage, he is not to see as to whether the trial will end in conviction or not. The broad test to be applied is whether the materials on record, if unrebutted, makes a conviction reasonably possible. [See: State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh and Prafulla Kumar Samal). (5) NATIONAL COMMISSION OF WOMEN VS STATE OF DELHI & ANR - (2010) 12 SUPREME COURT CASES 599 5. The present Special Leave Petition has been filed by the National Commission for Women and the only plea raised is that the reasons given by the High Court for reducing the sentence awarded under Section 376 of the IPC were not acceptable as a helpless girl had been cruelly exploited and cheated by the accused. This matter came up for motion hearing before a Bench of this Court and permission to file the Special Leave Petition was granted and notice was issued on 2nd April 2009. 6. Respondent No.1, that is the State of Delhi, has filed a counter affidavit, in effect supporting the case of the Commission although it has been S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 2506 of 2009 REPORTABLE conveyed to us by the learned Additional Solicitor General that the State does not propose to file an application for leave to appeal against the impugned judgment. The accused has also been served by publication but has not chosen to appear in response thereto. 11. An appeal is a creature of a Statute and cannot lie under any inherent power. This Court does undoubtedly grant leave to the appeal under the discretionary power conferred under Article 136 of the Constitution of India at the behest of the State or an affected private individual but to permit anybody or an organization pro-bono publico to file an appeal would be a dangerous doctrine and would cause utter confusion in the criminal justice system. We are ,therefore, of the opinion that the Special Leave Petition itself was not maintainable. 12. We are ,therefore, of the opinion that the Special Leave Petition itself was not maintainable. 12. In Pritam Singh v. State AIR (37) 1950 SC 169, this Court while dealing with a criminal matter (after the grant of leave under Article 136 of the Constitution) considered the scope and ambit of this Article and observed: "9. On a careful examination of Article 136 along with the preceding article, it seems clear that the wide discretionary power with which this Court is invested under it is to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases on1y, and as far as possible a more or less uniform standard S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 2506 of 2009 REPORTABLE should be adopted in granting special leave in the wide range of matters which can come up before it under this article. By virtue of this article, we can grant special leave in civil cases, in criminal cases, in income-tax cases, in cases which come up before different kinds of tribunals and in a variety of other cases. The only uniform standard which in our opinion can be laid down in the circumstances is that Court should grant special leave to appeal only in those cases where special circumstances are shown to exist........It is sufficient for our purpose to say that though we are not bound to follow them too rigidly since the reasons, constitutional and administrative, which sometimes weighed with the Privy Council, need not weigh with us, yet some of those principles are useful as furnishing in many cases a sound basis for invoking the discretion of this Court in granting special leave. Generally speaking, this Court will not grant special leave, unless it is shown that exceptional and special circumstances exist, that substantial and grave injustice has been done and that the case in question presents features of sufficient gravity to warrant a review of the decision appealed against." 13. In P.S.R. Sadhanantham v. Arunachalm And Another (1980) 3 SCC 141 , this Court was dealing with the locus standi of a private person in this case a victim's brother, who was neither a complainant nor a first informant in the criminal case but had filed a petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. In P.S.R. Sadhanantham v. Arunachalm And Another (1980) 3 SCC 141 , this Court was dealing with the locus standi of a private person in this case a victim's brother, who was neither a complainant nor a first informant in the criminal case but had filed a petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. This Court observed that the strictest vigilance was required to be maintained to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court, more particularly, in S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 2506 of 2009 REPORTABLE criminal matters, and ordinarily a private party other than the complainant, should not be permitted to file an appeal under Article 136, though the broad scope of the Article postulated an exception in suitable cases. It was spelt out as under:- "7. Specificity being essential to legality, let us if the broad spectrum spread out of Article 136 fills the bill from the point of view of "procedure established by law". In express terms, Article 136 does not confer a right of appeal on a party as such but it confers a wide discretionary power on the Supreme Court to interfere in suitable cases. The discretionary dimension is considerable but that relates to the power of the court. The question is whether it spells by implication, a fair procedure as contemplated by Article 21. In our view, it does. Article 136 is a special jurisdiction. It is residuary power; it is extraordinary in its amplitude, its limit, when it chases injustice, is the sky itself. This Court functionally fulfils itself by reaching out to injustice wherever it is and this power is largely derived in the common run of cases from Article 136. Is it merely a power in the court to be exercised in any manner it fancies? Is there no procedural limitation in the manner of exercise and the occasion for exercise? Is there no duty to act fairly while hearing a case under Article 136, either in the matter of grant of leave or, after such grant, in the final disposal of the appeal? We have hardly any doubt that there is a procedure necessarily implicit in the power vested in the summit court. It must be remembered that Article 136 confers jurisdiction on the highest court. We have hardly any doubt that there is a procedure necessarily implicit in the power vested in the summit court. It must be remembered that Article 136 confers jurisdiction on the highest court. The founding fathers unarguably intended in the S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 2506 of 2009 REPORTABLE very terms of Article 136 that it shall be exercised by the highest judges of the land with scrupulous adherence to judicial principles well established by precedents in our jurisprudence. Judicial discretion is canalised authority, not arbitrary eccentricity." 17. We, accordingly, dismiss the Special Leave Petition as not maintainable. The permission to file the S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 2506 of 2009 REPORTABLE Special Leave Petition granted vide this Court's order dated 2nd April, 2009, is, accordingly, revoked. 6) DALIP SINGH VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS (2010) 2 SUPREME COURT CASES 114 1. For many centuries, Indian society cherished two basic values of life i.e., `Satya' (truth) and `Ahimsa' (non-violence). Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these values in their daily life. Truth constituted an integral part of justice delivery system which was in vogue in pre-independence era and the people used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts irrespective of the consequences. However, post-independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. The materialism has over-shadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings. 2. In last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final. 7) M/S KERALA TRANSPORT & CO., VS D.S. SOMA SHEKAR & OTHERS (ILR 1981 KAR 169) 5. 7) M/S KERALA TRANSPORT & CO., VS D.S. SOMA SHEKAR & OTHERS (ILR 1981 KAR 169) 5. When the aforesaid petitions came up for admission before this Court, the office raised an objection with regard to the maintainability of the above petitions as the State of Karnataka, who is the complainant before the trial court, has not filed the revision petitions, but on the other hand they were preferred by the original complainant, viz., M/s. Kerala Transport Company. On 31-5-1979 this Court admitted the above petitions keeping open the question of maintainability, which shall be decided at the time of final hearing. 7. The petitions filed by the Kerala Transport Company as also the petitions filed by the State as aforesaid came up for hearing. In the meantime, as stated earlier, A-1 filed I.A. No. I in each of the 33 petitions, filed by M/s. Kerala Transport Company, praying that those petitions be dismissed as being not maintainable in view of the revision petitions filed by the State against the very same order of discharge passed by the trial Court. The parties submitted that the said I.A. No. I be disposed of as a preliminary issue and accordingly arguments were heard on the said I.A. Learned counsel appearing for the accused, the original complainant and the learned Advocate General appearing for the State advanced lengthy arguments on the question of maintainability or otherwise of the petitions filed by M/s. Kerala Transport Company. 9. … He further contended that as the chargesheets have been filed in pursuance of a police report and investigation, a private party has no locus standi and if a private party is permitted to prosecute the proceedings along with the State, it would not only lead to chaos and confusion but also would amount to a sort of 'double jeopardy'. 12. Sections 397 or 401 Cr.P.C. confer general revisional jurisdiction on the High Court and Sessions Judge. Section 397 Cr.P.C. empowers the High Court and Sessions Judge to call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court within the local limits of its or his jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed, as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior criminal court. Section 401 Cr.P.C. specifies the revisional powers of the High Court in dealing with any proceeding the record of which has been called for under Section 397 or which otherwise has come to its knowledge. In Pranab Kumar Mitra v. State of West Bengal, the Supreme Court has observed thus :- "The revisional powers of the High Court vested in it by this section, read with S. 397, do not create any right in the litigant, but only conserve the power of the High Court to see that justice is done in accordance with the recognised rule of criminal jurisprudence, and that subordinate criminal courts do not exceed their jurisdiction, or abuse their powers vested in them by the Code." 13. … Therefore, the proceedings before the Magistrate in all the cases have proceeded on a police report and if that is so a private party has no locus standi to invoke revisional jurisdiction. In Thakur Ram v. State of Bihar, , the Supreme Court while considering the revisional powers under Section 435, Cr.P.C. (Old Code) has observed thus :- "In a case which has proceeded on a police report a private party has really no locus standi. No doubt, the terms of S. 435 under which the jurisdiction of the learned Sessions Judge was invoked are very wide and he could even have taken up the matter suo motu. It would, however, not be irrelevant to bear in mind the fact that the Court's jurisdiction was invoked by a private party. The criminal law is not to be used as in instrument of wrecking private vengeance by an aggrieved party against the person who according to that party, had caused injury to it. It would, however, not be irrelevant to bear in mind the fact that the Court's jurisdiction was invoked by a private party. The criminal law is not to be used as in instrument of wrecking private vengeance by an aggrieved party against the person who according to that party, had caused injury to it. Barring a few exceptions, in criminal matters the party who is treated as the aggrieved party is the State which is the custodian of the social interests of the community at large and so it is for the State to take all the steps necessary for bringing the person who has acted against the social interests of the community to book." The ratio laid down by the Supreme Court makes it clear that tin criminal matters the party who is treated as the 'aggrieved party' is the State, which is the custodian of the social interests of the community at large; so it is the primary duty of the State to take all the steps necessary for bringing the person who has acted against the social interests of the community to book. It is also observed that the criminal law is not to be used as an instrument of wrecking private vengeance by an aggrieved party against the person, who according to that party had caused injury to it. Applying the aforesaid ratio to the facts of the case, it is seen that M/s. Kerala Transport Co., the Court in all these revision petitions is the informant of commission of cognizable offences by the accused and that it has been aggrieved by the illegal acts of the accused along with the State Bank of Mysore and as such an aggrieved party. M/s. Kerala Transport co., ceases to be an aggrieved party the moment the State steps into its place by placing a charge-sheet against the accused and it is for the State of continue the proceedings to its conclusion. M/s. Kerala Transport Co., recedes to the position of a third party and if it is permitted to prosecute the revision petitions parallel to the revision petitions filed by the State in respect of the very same impugned orders, it would amount to permitting M/s. Kerala Transport Co., a third party, to use criminal law to wreck private vengeance against the accused. The state being saddled with the primary responsibility of safeguarding the social interests of the community at large is to take all necessary steps to book the person who has acted against the social interest of the community. If that is so, it cannot be said that M/s. Kerala Transport Co., could maintain and continue the aforesaid revision petitions in view of the State having challenged the very impugned orders in Crl.R.P. Nos. 334 to 370 of 1979. 20. … The circumstances appearing in this case show that the State who is the aggrieved party and custodian of the social interests of the community at large has taken all steps necessary for bringing the person (accused) who has acted against the social interests of the community to book, in which case the third party, viz., M/s. Kerala Transport Co., has ceased to be an independent entity with a cause of its own to pursue its cause. The criminal law is not to be used as an instrument of wrecking private vengeance by an aggrieved party against the person who according to that party, had caused injury to it. In other words, the original petitioner, as a private party has no locus standi to pursue the petitions under the circumstances mentioned above and if that is so, the said petitions are not maintainable and they are liable to be dismissed. 21. In the result, for the reasons stated above, I.A. No. I filed in each of these petitions is allowed and consequently the above petitions are dismissed as being not maintainable. 8) SUSHILA DEVI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS (2014) 1 SUPREME COURT CASES 269 Constitution of India – Arts.136, 32 and 226 – SBI Investigation – Monitoring of a case by Supreme Court – Scope of – Where investigation is conducted by CBI on direction of Supreme Court, held, further monitoring of case by Supreme Court would not continue subsequent to filing of charge-sheet before competent court. These are all the reliances placed by the learned Senior counsel for Respondent No.2/accused No.2, which are squarely applicable to the given facts and circumstances of the case to entertain the petition filed under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. seeking discharge from the offences lugged against the accused. These are all the reliances placed by the learned Senior counsel for Respondent No.2/accused No.2, which are squarely applicable to the given facts and circumstances of the case to entertain the petition filed under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. seeking discharge from the offences lugged against the accused. Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly considered the materials secured by the I.O. during the course of investigation and even laid the bulky charge-sheet against the accused. But this petitioner being arraigned as Accused No.2 and the I.A.No.21 which has been filed by her before the Court of the XLVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI in Spl.CC No.116/2012 dated 8.10.2015 has been rightly allowed and she has been discharged from the offences alleged. Therefore, there is no merit in this matter to call for interference of the order passed by the Trial Court, as the same is not found to be erroneous or perverse to call for interference and also there is no warranting circumstances to interfere with the same. 16. It is in this backdrop, it is relevant to refer to the case in Spl.CC No.116/2012 which is pending for trial against the accused cited in the charge-sheet. But Respondent No.2 Lakshmi Aruna who is arraigned as Accused No.2 has filed an application under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. seeking discharge from the alleged offences lugged against her. But the Trial Court has considered the material secured by the I.O. during the course of investigation and so also the objection in detail filed by the Investigating Agency/CBI-ACB, Bangalore through the Special Public Prosecutor. But from the allegation made in the charge-sheet, it is revealed that Shri Gali Janardhan Reddy and the other accused are alleged to have committed the offences with a criminal conspiracy, during the year 2009-10 in Ballari and so also other places in Karnataka to do some illegal mining activity along the border and forest area of Ballari reserve forest as regards acts of breach of trust as an agent and offences of criminal trespass and so also forgery/cheating by using some forged documents as genuine, committing theft of iron ore from forest area and other areas of Bellary District in order to transport the said stolen goods by using the premises of M/s. AMC, without doing any mining activity in the leasehold areas. But as regards the complaint allegation, the Investigating Authority has secured material evidence during the course of investigation that beneficiary to the entire illegal mining is M/s. Associated Mining Company belonging to the accused Gali Janardhan Reddy and he is none other than the husband of this Accused No.2/Lakshmi Aruna. This accused No.2 used to subscribe her signature in various documents relating to the company including the banking transaction and she cannot shirk away from the responsibility to the acts of the company as this contention was taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner by referring so much of material documents and so also so much of statements said to have been recorded by the Investigating Agency/CBI-ACB, Bangalore. 17. But only after approval made by accused No.1 – Gali Janardhana Reddy who was carrying out the business affairs of the mining that accused No.2 – Smt.Lakshmi Aruna used to subscribe her signature on the cheque. But the materials were collected by the IO during the course of investigation in order to laying of the charge sheet against the accused invoking the offence under Sections 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. If the trial Court finds that there are any material evidence which finds place in the record then the only it has to proceed for framing of charge and even after going through the oral and documentary evidence which collected during the course of the investigation. In this regard, it is relevant to refer Section 239 of Cr.P.C. which reads as under: 239. When accused shall be discharged. If, upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under section 173 and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused, and record his reasons for so doing. 18. Though the investigating agency has laid the charge sheet against the accused under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. by following requisite conditions and so also recording of statement of witnesses as contemplated under Section 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. but in the instant case, mere recording the statement of witnesses, it cannot be specifically said that the incriminating materials were attributed specifically against accused No.2 – Smt.Lakshmi Aruna. But investigation report reveals that accused No.1 – Gali Janardhan Reddy is involved in respect of committing offences as the criminal conspiracy and so also fraudulent and criminal breach of trust and also offences under Section 13(1)(c) and (d) r/w 13 Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption act, 1988. CWs.9 to 15, CW18, 23, 38, 39, 51 to 58 who are the official witnesses have given their statement before the investigating agency during the course of investigation. They were deputed to issue permits to M/s. Associated Mining Company. But these witnesses have given the statement during the course of investigation, but Rule 47 of the Karnataka Forest Rules in respect of issuance of permits, K.M.Vishwanath who is cited as a witness where his statement has been recorded as contemplated under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. but he has given a statement before the IO in respect of the allegations made against Accused No. 1- Gali Janardhan reddy and even at a cursory glance of his statement in its entirety he has specifically stated in respect of the allegation of any force, threat or inducement being made to take hold of the firm. All the incriminating attributions made are against Accused No.1 – Gali Jardhan Reddy. Similarly, CW.20 has also given the statement as contemplated under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. Even at a cursory glance of statement of these witnesses there is no specific reference made to the name of accused No.2 – Smt.Lakshmi Aruna that she is having pivotal role with Accused No.1 – Gali Janardhan Reddy in respect of committing the alleged offences. Similarly the statement of CWs.27, CW.40, CW.41, they have also given their statements during the course of investigation but they did not spell about the role made by accused No.2 – Smt.Lakshmi Aruna. At a cursory glance of statement of CW.76, this witness has also never spelt about the role made by accused No.2 – Smt.Lakshmi Aruna. But all these are policy matters in respect of the firm and so also, payment to any party and any decision in respect of the iron ore business was taken by Gali Janardhan Reddy who is arraigned as accused No.1. Only after verification of the material documents and also vouchers approved by him that his wife accused No.2 – Smt.Lakshmi Aruna used to subscribed her signature on the cheques. Only after verification of the material documents and also vouchers approved by him that his wife accused No.2 – Smt.Lakshmi Aruna used to subscribed her signature on the cheques. Even at a cursory glance of the entire statement it is only after approval made by Gali Janardhan Reddy on the vouchers maintained in the business administration tallies, accused No.2 – Smt.Lakshmi Aruna used to subscribe her signature on the cheque. But the statement of CW.4 does not spell any incriminating materials against accused No.2 – Smt.Lakshmi Aruna that she was having a vital role in committing the alleged offences with her husband accused No.1 – Gali Janardhan Reddy. There is no dispute that accused No.2 – Smt.Lakshmi Aruna who is no other than the wife of Gali Janardhan Reddy and so also she is one of the family members who is nothing to do with the important role along with her husband. But she has been lugged into the alleged crime. But such practice should be curtailed as she being the innocent victim and just because she happened to be the wife of Gali Janardhan Reddy, she has been roped in the alleged charge sheet. But the principles enunciated in the aforesaid decisions cited by learned senior counsel – Sri Sandesh J.Chouta that accused No.2 – Smt.Lakshmi Aruna is a sleeping partner of M/s.Associated Mining Company along with her husband accused No.1 – Gali Janardhan Reddy. But there is no specific role made by her in respect of the iron ore business and there are no incriminating materials against her. But all the mining business is done by accused No.1 and there is attribution against him alone as alleged. Therefore, there is no much force in the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner for seeking intervention of this Court by exercising the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. On all these grounds, learned senior counsel for respondent No.2/accused No.2 seeks for dismissal of the petition. 19. It is relevant to refer that the criminal law was set into motion against accused No.1 – Gali Janardhan Reddy and so also other accused. But accused No.2 – Smt.Lakshmi Aruna, she being a sleeping partner of M/s.Associated Mining Company was granted the mining lease No.2434 (Old No.625) for a period of 30 years w.e.f. 2.3.1966 and the same expired on 1.3.1996. But accused No.2 – Smt.Lakshmi Aruna, she being a sleeping partner of M/s.Associated Mining Company was granted the mining lease No.2434 (Old No.625) for a period of 30 years w.e.f. 2.3.1966 and the same expired on 1.3.1996. But accused No.3– M.E.Shivalinga Murthy, the then Director of Mines and Geology, Government of Karnataka sent a letter dated 5.8.2010 to the Chief Controller of Mines, Nagpur giving wrong information about the mining lease granted to M/s. Associated Mining Company. But he is arraigned as an accused in the charge sheeted case and so also , he is facing of a trial for the alleged offences. But in pursuance of the conspiracy hatched by Accused No.1 – Gali Janardhan Reddy with a dishonest intention to cheat the Government of Karnataka illegally extracted the iron ore from the forest land and he is the prime accused. But accused No.2 – Smt.Lakshmi Aruna who is none other than the wife of Gali Janardhan Reddy almost all important decisions were taken by him alone and after approval made by him, then only accused No.2 – Smt.Lakshmi Aruna used to subscribe her signature on the cheques. But almost all mining business is directly carried by Gali Janardhan Reddy who is arraigned as accused No.1 in the charge sheeted case and moreover the investigating agency i.e., CBI/ACB has laid the charge sheet against the accused relating to the case in RC.18(A)/2011. In the charge sheet several witnesses have been cited as CW.1 to 310. These witnesses are required to undergo test by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. But the charge sheeted materials which collected by the IO during the course of investigation even at a cursory glance would indicate that accused No.1 – Gali Janardhan Reddy having a pivotal role in the mining of iron ore in the lease hold areas of the company under the mining license. Even in pursuance of conspiracy i.e., in respect of conspiratorial agreement that accused No.1 – Gali Janardhan Reddy was having a pivotal role in the mining operation and its business having extracted iron ore from various area of lease hold land of the company. But the domain it is vested with the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused by producing worthwhile evidence. But the domain it is vested with the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused by producing worthwhile evidence. But accused No.2 – Smt.Lakshmi Aruna has been discharged of the offence leveled against her by an order passed by the XLVI Additional City Civil and sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bangalore in Spl.C.C.No.116/2012. Even at a cursory glance of the statement of some of the witnesses i.e., Cws.24, 26, 27, 40, 41, 48, 76, 95, 63, 73, 140, 213, the trial court has arrived at a conclusion in their statement and also given their statement during the course of investigation before the investigating agency that they have not specifically spelt in respect of the pivotal role made by accused No.2 – Smt.Lakshmi Aruna. Even at a cursory glance of the aforesaid statements of all those witnesses and even to say that there are sufficient evidence or otherwise to say prima-facie materials as against accused No.2 – Smt.Lakshmi Aruna to proceed further, but there is no strong materials against her for the alleged offences. But the trial Court has considered I.A.21 filed under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. after going through the facts of the case and so also the statement of witnesses and material documents facilitated by the investigating agency. Accused No.2 – Smt.Lakshmi Aruna was only a sleeping partner and there are no incriminating materials against her to framing of a charge but she has only subscribed her signature as according to the instructions of accused No.1 – Gali Janardhan Reddy. Though the aforesaid witnesses have been cited in the charge sheet that they have not specifically stated anything with regard to the role of accused No.2 – Smt.Lakshmi Aruna in commission of the alleged offences of mining business of the company which is directly run by accused No.1 – Gali Janardhan Reddy. Even in the policy matters the decisions were used to be taken by Gali Janardhan Reddy who is arraigned as Accused No.1. These are all the materials evidence secured by the IO during the course of investigation which is considered by the trial Court in respect of consideration of I.A.21 filed under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. seeking discharge. 20. However, keeping in view the ambit and scope of this Section it is always the domain vested with the prosecution to proceed if circumstances are warranting. 20. However, keeping in view the ambit and scope of this Section it is always the domain vested with the prosecution to proceed if circumstances are warranting. But in the instant case, Smt.Lakshmi Aruna, who is arraigned as Accused No.2 has been discharged from the offences by the trial Court by allowing the application filed by her under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., i.e., I.A.No.21. However, Section 239 of Cr.P.C. is under what circumstances the accused shall be discharged. If upon considering the police report and the document sent with it under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. and making such examination if any of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, and he shall discharge the accused, and record his reasons for so doing. In the instant case the Court below has considered I.A.21 for discharge, after going through the entire material, statements of witness, oral and documentary evidence and came to the conclusion, that there is no sufficient evidence to proceed against Accused No.2 – Smt. G. Lakshmi Aruna. In the instant case, the trial Court has considered the application filed under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. by Smt.Lakshmi Aruna, who is arraigned as Accused No.2 seeking discharge. In this regard it is relevant to refer Section 227 of Cr.P.C. which reads as under: 227. Discharge. If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing. Discharge. If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing. Section 239 of Cr.P.C. which postulates “When accused shall be discharged - If, upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under Section 173 and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused, and record his reasons for so doing.” In the instant case, the Magisterial powers has been exercised by the rank of the District and Sessions Judge in Spl.CC.No.116/2012 as where the accused No.2 had filed an application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C seeking discharge. In the instant case, it is necessary to examine the scope of such exercise made by the Special Judge and even under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. part of Chapter 18 which applies to trial before the sessions court. But in the instant case, the Special Judge is of the rank of District and Sessions Judge. Discharge - If upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing.' The language of Sections 239 and 227 are different. The scope of power exercisable to grant discharge under Section 227 is less compared to the power of discharge conferred on the Magistrate under Section 239. But in the instant case, the Magisterial power is conferred to the Special Judge being rank of District and Sessions Judge. It is for this reason Sessions Judge is required to examine only the record of the case and documents submitted therewith for ascertainment as to whether a case is made out for framing charge or discharge. But under Section 239, the requirement is different. It is for this reason Sessions Judge is required to examine only the record of the case and documents submitted therewith for ascertainment as to whether a case is made out for framing charge or discharge. But under Section 239, the requirement is different. It envisages ' If upon consideration the police report i.e., CBI report and the documents sent with it under Section 173 and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused, and record his reasons for so doing.' But in the instant case, IA.21 was filed by Accused No.2 – Smt.Lakshmi aruna and the said application was allowed by considering all oral and material documents secured by the investigating agency by laying the charge sheet as against the accused as contemplated under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. But while considering the case of discharge the trial Judge has to exercise his judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether the case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. The sufficiency of ground would take within its fold the nature of the evidence recorded by the police or documents produced before the court which ex-facie disclosed that there was suspicious circumstance against the accused. Then the trial Judge has to apply its mind to proceed with the case in further to framing of charge and so also, facing of trial by the accused. This Section 227 of Cr.P.C. is in Chapter XVIII – Trial before a court of session. But the trial court i.e., XLVI Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bangalore in Spl.C.C.No.116/2012 has considered the application filed under Section 239 of Cr.P.C by Accused No.2 – Smt.Lakshmi Aruna. But the trial Judge is a rank of District and Sessions Judge but the concept of Section 239 of Cr.P.C the charge sheet is laid before the Magistrate but the trial Judge of the rank of District and Sessions Judge as in a special cases having Magisterial powers. But the trial Judge is a rank of District and Sessions Judge but the concept of Section 239 of Cr.P.C the charge sheet is laid before the Magistrate but the trial Judge of the rank of District and Sessions Judge as in a special cases having Magisterial powers. Therefore, even to exercise the power as contemplated under Section 239 of Cr.P.C seeking discharge as the trial Court having Magisterial powers also be discharging the accused as the trial Judge has to apply its mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. The materials which secured by the IO during the course of investigation other than those produced by the prosecution can also be looked into and should be considered even at the time of framing of charge to find out whether prima-facie case is made out or not. 21. But in the instant case, the charge sheet is laid by the investigating agency – CBI/ACB under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. Mere because of laying of charge sheet against the accused by the investigating agency for the offences which lugged in the charge sheet, but the accused is having right of recourse to file an application under Section 239/227 of Cr.P.C. seeking discharge if there are no sufficient evidence or materials secured by the IO to framing of a charge. If there are no strong materials find place in the charge sheet case, then the trial Judge has to apply its mind to consider the application filed by the accused seeking discharge. But in the instant case, Accused No.2 – Smt.Lakshmi Aruna has filed I.A.21 under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. seeking discharge. Subsequent to filing of an application by her, the Special Public Prosecutor has filed objections to the said application in detail by referring the statement of witnesses and so also referring the material documents secured by the IO and ultimately came to the conclusion that mere because Accused No.2 – Smt.Lakshmi Aruna is a partner of M/s. Associated Mining Company along with Accused No.1 and when there is no active role is incriminated against her, she cannot be made liable for the acts done by Accused No.1. She was only subscribing her signature on the documents only after the documents were verified by her husband – Gali Janardhan Reddy who is arraigned as Accused No.1. Mere because she was subscribing the signature, it cannot be said that there is direct overt act attributed against her in committing the alleged offences that too be in the mining of iron ore business which was being carried out by accused No.1. Therefore, the XLVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Case, Bangalore has rightly come to the conclusion that there are no sufficient materials/evidence against Accused No.2 – Smt.Lakshmi Aruna to proceed in further for framing of charge and consequently, she was discharged from the case. Therefore, in this petition, there is no merits or otherwise to say there is no substance to call for interference of this Court and no warranting circumstances has arised for intervention of the impugned order passed by the trial court in Spl.C.C.No.116/2012 dated 08.10.2015. 22. In terms of the aforesaid reasons and findings, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner S.R. Hiremath, Honorary Executive Director of Samaja Parivarthana Samudhaya Asha Deep under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the 46th City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge for CBI Cases at Bangalore City in Spl.C.C.No.116/2012 dated 8.10.2015 is hereby confirmed. Since it is a case of the year 2012, the Trial Court is directed to expedite the case for disposal by following the Standard Operating Procedure. However, all the contentions shall be kept open to both the prosecution and the defence counsel in the aforesaid case. Whatever observations made in this order shall not influence the mind of the Trial Court to dispose of the case where the other accused are facing trial and shall be disposed of on merits, in accordance with law.