REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 590 of 2007

State of Maharashtra & Ors.  …Appellants

Versus

Arun Gulab Gawali & Ors.        …Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and  

Order dated 27.07.2006 in Criminal Writ Petition No.3169/2005  

with Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 874 and 878 of 2006, passed by  

the  High  Court  of  Judicature  at  Bombay,  allowing  the  said  

petitions  filed  by  the  respondents  and  quashing  the  Criminal  

Complaint/FIR.    

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to the present appeal  

are  that  Mohd.  Qureshi,  one  of  the  respondents,  lodged  a

complaint dated 8.11.2005 with Deputy Commissioner of Police,  

CID (Unit  III)  against  the  Arun  Gulab  Gawali  gang.  The said  

complaint  was  forwarded  to  Agripada  Police  Station.  

Accordingly, CR No. 241/2005 under Sections 384, 386, 506(ii),  

120,  34  of  Indian  Penal  Code,  1860  (in  short,  “IPC”)  was  

registered against Arun Gulab Gawali, MLA, respondent herein,  

and  members  of  his  gang,  namely,  Sunil  Gathe,  Sadanand  

Panchal,  Rajendra  Sadvirkar  and Sanjay  Girkar.   After  taking  

over of the investigation by DCB, CID, Mumbai, CR No. 135/05  

was registered.   

3. According to the said complaint, there was a commercial  

transaction  in  December,  2002,  between  one  Mr.  Doshi  and  

Mohd.  Qureshi  in  respect  of  the  purchase  of  Hotel  Pritam  

International at Ambernath in partnership and certain payments  

had  also  been  made,  but  there  was  a  dispute  between  the  

parties. An advertisement was issued for sale of the hotel, but  

the said hotel could not be sold for two years and the differences  

between them continued.  On 15th March, 2005, the complainant  

2

received a telephone call  from an unknown person, who used  

very vulgar and indecent language and told the complainant to  

come to  Dagadi  Chawl  for  settlement  of  the  dispute  of  Hotel  

Pritam.   Dagadi  Chawl  is  the residential  place of  respondent,  

Arun Gulab Gawali, and he also has an office in that Chawl.  The  

complainant became scared and went to Dagadi Chawl on 18th  

March, 2005. On reaching there the complainant met one person  

by the name Sanjay Girkar,  who abused him.   Sanjay Girkar  

contacted Mr. Doshi on his mobile and spoke with him in vulgar  

language and asked him to come to Dagadi Chawl for settlement  

of  the case of  Hotel  Pritam.  The complainant  and Mr.  Doshi  

visited  Dagadi  Chawl  a  number  of  times  along  with  other  

persons.  The accomplices of Arun Gulab Gawali gave threats to  

them and directed them to act  according to their  instructions.  

Due to  fear  of  threats  of  the members of  the said  gang,  Mr.  

Doshi and the complainant agreed to pay the extortion money.  

The complainant was instructed to pay a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs to  

Shiv Shambhu Trust, which is managed by Arun Gulab Gawali.  

The  complainant  paid  the  amount  of  Rs.15  lakhs  to  the  said  

3

Trust under the threat that if this amount was not paid, then his  

life would be in danger.  The complainant also learnt that Mr.  

Doshi  had already  paid  Rs.  25 lakhs  to  the  said  gang under  

threat.  Subsequently,  the  accomplices  of  Arun  Gulab  Gawali  

made telephone calls to the complainant to pay Rs. 3 lakhs more  

and  the  said  amount  was  also  paid.  They  also  forced  the  

complainant to sign certain papers.     

4. Mohd.  Qureshi,  the  complainant/respondent,  filed  

application dated 14.11.2005 before the Court  of  Metropolitan  

Magistrate (46th Court), Mazgaon, Mumbai stating that he did not  

want to proceed with the complaint.  The court rejected the said  

application vide order dated 17.11.2005.   

5. Mohd. Qureshi and his wife Ayesha Qureshi, respondents,  

filed Writ Petition No. 2906/2005 on 29.11.2005, before the High  

Court  alleging  harassment  by  the  police  and  seeking  the  

direction of removal of surveillance by police, as police had been  

posted with them under the garb of protection, and asking for the  

4

initiation  of  a  judicial  inquiry  against  the  police  alleging  that  

Mohd.  Qureshi  was  forced  by  the  police  itself  to  lodge  the  

complaint dated 8.11.2005 against the Arun Gulab Gawali gang  

and also forced to write an application seeking protection, though  

they never sought any such protection.   

6. The High Court disposed of the said Writ Petition vide order  

dated  21.12.2005,  recording  the  statement  of  the  petitioners’  

counsel that police protection had already been withdrawn and  

giving  liberty  to  the  said  petitioners  to  make  their  grievances  

before the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai. The Commissioner  

of Police was directed that in case, such a complaint is filed, it  

should be decided expeditiously in accordance with law.   

7. Mohd. Qureshi filed Criminal  Writ   Petition No. 874/2006  

before  the  High  Court  of  Bombay  for  quashing  the  CR  No.  

241/2005.  Arun Gulab Gawali  also preferred Writ Petition No.  

3169/05 seeking quashing of FIR 241/2005 at Agripada Police  

Station, and Writ Petition No. 878/2006 for quashing of CR No.  

5

135 of 2005.  All the said Writ Petitions were clubbed and heard  

together.  The appellants herein contested the said Petitions by  

filing Counter Affidavits.  

8. In  the  meanwhile,  Arun  Gulab  Gawali  was  granted  

anticipatory  bail  by  the  Sessions  Court  vide  order  dated  

3.12.2005.   The High  Court  cancelled  the  anticipatory  bail  of  

Arun Gulab Gawali vide Order dated 21.02.2006 and remanded  

the case to the Sessions Court to consider it afresh.  During the  

pendency  of  the  reconsideration  of  the  said  application,  

proceedings under Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act,  

1999 (MCOCA) against Arun Gulab Gawali  were initiated vide  

order dated 14.04.2006.   

The High Court allowed all the said Writ Petitions quashing  

the  C.R.No.241/2005,  and  C.R.  No.135/2005.   Hence,  this  

appeal.   

9. Sh. Arun R. Pednekar, learned counsel for the appellants,  

has submitted that the High Court has committed a grave error in  

6

quashing  the  FIR/complaint.  Mohd.  Qureshi,  respondent,  had  

filed a complaint  against  the Arun Gulab Gawali  gang on the  

basis of which a case was registered.  If for certain reasons or  

under threat by the Arun Gulab Gawali gang, Mohd. Qureshi did  

not want to pursue the matter further, such a course could not be  

a ground for quashing the proceedings.  More so, the High Court  

reached the conclusion that if the proceedings were permitted to  

continue, there was no possibility of conviction after conclusion  

of the trial.  The Court, in exercise of its inherent power, is not  

competent  to  take  a  decision  at  the  preliminary  stage  and  

determine  as  to  whether  there  is  a  possibility  of  conviction.  

Thus, the impugned Judgment and order of the High Court  is  

liable to be set aside.   

10. Per  contra,  Mr.  S.B.  Sanyal,  learned  senior  counsel  for  

Respondent  Nos. 2 & 3 and Mr.  Makarand D. Adkar,  learned  

counsel for the respondent No.1, have vehemently opposed the  

appeal  contending that the Court  had examined the facts and  

taken note of various proceedings initiated by the respondents in  

7

the  meantime  to  the  effect  that  the  police  officials  had  been  

harassing Mohd. Qureshi and his family and it  was the police  

who forced the complainant to lodge the complaint against the  

Arun  Gulab  Gawali  gang  and,  he  was  forced  to  take  police  

protection labeling him as a complainant against the Arun Gulab  

Gawali  gang.  Ayesha Qureshi  filed the appropriate application  

before  the  Metropolitan  Magistrate  on  9.11.2005  and  

approached the State Human Rights Commission on 11.11.2005  

against the atrocities of the police. The High Court decided the  

matter  after  considering  all  the  aspects.   The  Judgment  and  

order of the High Court does not warrant any interference.  The  

appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.       

11. We  have  considered  the  rival  submissions  made  by  

learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.  

12. The  power  of  quashing  criminal  proceedings  has  to  be  

exercised  very sparingly and with circumspection and that  

8

too in the rarest of rare cases and the Court cannot be justified  

in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness  

or otherwise of allegations made in the F.I.R./Complaint, unless  

the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable  

so that  no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion.  

The extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer  

an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims  

or caprice. However, the Court, under its inherent powers, can  

neither intervene at an uncalled for stage nor it can ‘soft-pedal  

the  course  of  justice'  at  a  crucial  stage  of  investigation/  

proceedings.   The  provisions  of  Articles  226,  227  of  the  

Constitution of  India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal  

Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called as ‘Cr.P.C.’) are a device to  

advance justice and not  to  frustrate  it.   The power  of  judicial  

review is discretionary, however, it must be exercised to prevent  

the miscarriage of justice and for correcting some grave errors  

and to ensure that esteem of administration of justice remains  

clean and pure.  However,  there are no limits of power of the  

Court, but the more the power, the more due care and caution is  

9

to be exercised in invoking these powers.  (Vide State of West  

Bengal & Ors. Vs. Swapan Kumar Guha & Ors. AIR 1982 SC  

949;  M/s.  Pepsi  Foods  Ltd.  &  Anr.  Vs.  Special  Judicial  

Magistrate & Ors. AIR 1998 SC 128; G. Sagar Suri & Anr. Vs.  

State of  U.P.  & Ors.  AIR 2000 SC 754;  and  Ajay  Mitra Vs.  

State of M.P. & Ors.  AIR 2003 SC 1069).

13. In R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866, this  

Court laid down the following principles :-

(I) Where institution/continuance of criminal proceedings  

against  an  accused may amount  to  the  abuse  of  the  

process  of  the  court  or  that  the  quashing  of  the  

impugned proceedings would secure the ends of justice;  

(II) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar  

against  the  institution  or  continuance  of  the  said  

proceeding, e.g. want of sanction;  

(III) where the allegations in the First Information Report  

or the complaint taken at their face value and accepted  

in  their  entirety,  do not  constitute  the offence alleged;  

and

10

(IV) where the allegations constitute an offence alleged  

but  there  is  either  no  legal  evidence  adduced  or  

evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the  

charge.

14. In State of Haryana & Ors.  Vs.  Ch. Bhajan Lal  & Ors.  

AIR 1992 SC 604, this Court laid down the similar guidelines for  

exercising the inherent power, giving types of cases where the  

Court  may  exercise  its  inherent  power  to  quash  the  criminal  

proceedings.  However, the types of cases mentioned therein do  

not  constitute  an  exhaustive  list,  rather  the  cases are  merely  

illustrative.   

15. In State of Karnataka Vs. L.Muniswamy & Ors. AIR 1977  

SC 1489, this Court held as under :-

“In  the  exercise  of  this  wholesome  power,  the  High  Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to  the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue  would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that   the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to  be quashed. The saving of the High Court's inherent  powers, both in civil and criminal matters is designed to   achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court   proceeding  ought  not  to  be  permitted  to  degenerate  

11

into  a  weapon  of  harassment  or  persecution.  In  a  criminal  case,  the  veiled  object  behind  a  lame  prosecution, the very nature of the material on which  the  structure  of  the  prosecution  rests  and  the  like  would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding  in  the  interest  of  justice.  The  ends  of  justice  are  higher  than the ends of  mere law though justice   has got to be administered according to laws made  by  the  legislature.  The  compelling  necessity  for  making  these  observations  is  that  without  a  proper  realisation of the object and purpose of the provision   which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High  Court to do justice between the State and its subjects it   would  be  impossible  to  appreciate  the  width  and  contours of that salient jurisdiction.” (Emphasis added).

16. The inherent power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae, to  

do real and substantial justice, for administration of which alone  

Courts  exist.  Wherever  any  attempt  is  made  to  abuse  that  

authority  so  as  to  produce  injustice,  the  Court  has  power  to  

prevent  the abuse.   It  is,  however,  not  necessary  that  at  this  

stage there should be a meticulous analysis of the case before  

the  trial  to  find  out  whether  the  case  ends  in  conviction  or  

acquittal. (Vide Mrs. Dhanalakshmi Vs. R. Prasanna Kumar &  

Ors. AIR  1990  SC  494;  Ganesh  Narayan  Hegde Vs.  S.  

Bangarappa  &  Ors.  (1995)  4  SCC  41;  and  M/s Zandu  

12

Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Md.  Sharaful Haque &  

Ors. AIR 2005 SC 9).     

17. In State of Orissa & Anr. Vs. Saroj Kumar Sahoo (2005)  

13  SCC  540,  it  has  been  held  that  probabilities  of  the  

prosecution version can not be analysed at this stage. Likewise  

the allegations of mala fides of the informant are of secondary  

importance. The relevant passage reads thus:  

“It  would  not  be  proper  for  the  High  Court  to   analyse the case of the complainant in the light of  all  probabilities in order to determine whether a  conviction  would  be  sustainable  and  on  such  premises  arrive  at  a  conclusion that  the  proceedings  are  to  be  quashed.  It  would  be  erroneous  to  assess  the  material  before  it  and  conclude  that  the  complaint  cannot  be  proceeded  with.” (Emphasis added).

18. In  B.S. Joshi & Ors.  Vs.  State of Haryana & Anr. AIR  

2003  SC  1386,  this  Court  held  that  inherent  power  must  be  

utilised  with  the  sole  purpose  of  preventing  the  abuse  of  the  

process of the court or to otherwise serve the ends of justice.  In  

13

exercise  of  inherent  powers,  proper  scrutiny  of  facts  and  

circumstances of the case concerned are absolutely imperative.   

19. In  Madhavrao  Jiwaji  Rao  Scindia  &  Anr.   Vs.  

Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Ors. AIR 1988 SC 709,  

this court held as under :-

“The  legal  position  is  well-settled  that  when  a  prosecution  at  the  initial  stage  is  asked  to  be  quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to  whether  the  uncontroverted  allegations  as  made  prima facie establish the offence.  It  is also for the  court  to  take  into  consideration  any  special   features  which  appear  in  a  particular  case  to  consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of   justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so  on the basis that the court cannot be utilised for any  oblique purpose and  where in  the opinion of  the  court chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak  and,  therefore,  no  useful  purpose  is  likely  to  be  served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue,  the  court  may  while  taking  into  consideration  the  special facts of a case also quash the proceeding  even  though  it  may  be  at  a  preliminary  stage.”   (Emphasis added).    

20. This  Court,  while  reconsidering  the  Judgment  in  

Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao  Scindia (supra), consistently observed  

14

that where matters are also of civil nature i.e. matrimonial, family  

disputes,  etc.,  the Court  may consider “special  facts”,  “special  

features”  and  quash  the  criminal  proceedings  to  encourage  

genuine settlement of disputes between the parties.   

21. The said Judgment was reconsidered and explained by this  

Court in  State of Bihar & Anr. Vs.  Shri P.P. Sharma & Anr.  

AIR 1991 SC 1260, as under :

“Madhaorao J.  Scindhia v.  Sambhaji  Rao  AIR 1988  SC 709, also does not help the respondents.  In that  case the allegations constituted civil wrong as the  trustees  created  tenancy  of  Trust  property  to  favour the third party.  A private complaint was laid  for the offence under Section 467 read with Section 34  and Section 120B I.P.C. which the High Court refused  to quash under Section  482.  This Court allowed the  appeal and quashed the proceedings on the ground  that even on its own contentions in the complaint,  it   would be a case of breach of trust or a civil wrong  but  no  ingredients  of  criminal  offences  were  made  out. On those facts and also due to the relation of the   settler, the mother, the appellant and his wife, as the  son  and  daughter-in-law,  this  Court  interfered  and  allowed the appeal………Therefore, the ratio therein  is of no assistance to the facts in this case. It cannot  be  considered  that  this  Court  laid  down  as  a  proposition  of  law that  in  every  case  the  court   would examine at the preliminary stage whether  

15

24. Thus,  the  judgment  in  Madhavrao  Jiwaji  Rao  Scindia  

(supra) does not lay down a law of universal application. Even as  

per  the  law laid  down therein  the  court  can not  examine  the  

facts/evidence etc. in every case to find out as to whether there  

is sufficient material on the basis of which the case would end in  

conviction.  The ratio of the said Judgment is applicable in limited  

cases where the Court finds that the dispute involved therein is  

predominantly civil in nature and that the parties should be given  

a chance to reach a compromise e.g. matrimonial, property and  

family disputes etc. etc. The Superior Courts have been given  

inherent powers to prevent the abuse of the process of Court  

where the Court finds that the ends of justice may be met by  

quashing the proceedings, it may quash the proceedings, as the  

end  of  achieving  justice  is  higher  than  the  end  of  merely  

following the law.  It is not necessary for the court to hold a full-

fledged inquiry or to appreciate the evidence, collected by the  

Investigating Agency, if any to find out whether the case would  

end in conviction or acquittal.    

17

25. The instant case is required to be examined in the light of  

the aforesaid settled legal propositions.   

The High Court proceeded on the perception that as the  

complainant himself was not supporting the complaint, he would  

not support the case of the prosecution and there would be no  

chance  of  conviction,  thus  the  trial  itself  would  be  a  futile  

exercise.  Quashing of FIR/Complaint on such a ground cannot  

be held to be justified in law.  Ordinarily, the Court of Sessions is  

empowered to discharge an accused under Section 227 Cr.P.C.  

even before initiating the trial. The accused can, therefore, move  

the Trial Court itself for such a relief and the Trial Court would be  

in  a  better  position  to  analyse  and  pass  an  order  as  it  is  

possessed of  all  the  powers  and the material  to  do so.  It  is,  

therefore, not necessary to invoke the jurisdiction under Section  

482 Cr.P.C. for the quashing of a prosecution in such a case.  

The reliance on affidavits by the High Court would be a weak,  

hazy and unreliable source for adjudication on the fate of a trial.  

The presumption that an accused would never be convicted on  

18

the material available is too risky a proposition to be accepted  

readily, particularly in heinous offences like extortion.  

A  claim  founded  on  a  denial  by  the  complainant  even  

before the trial commences coupled with an allegation that the  

police  had  compelled  the  lodging  of  a  false  FIR,  is  a  matter  

which  requires  further  investigation  as  the  charge  is  levelled  

against the police. If the prosecution is quashed, then neither the  

Trial Court nor the Investigating Agency has any opportunity to  

go into this question, which may require consideration. The State  

is  the  prosecutor  and  all  prosecution  is  the  social  and  legal  

responsibility  of  the  State.  An  offence  committed  is  a  crime  

against  a  society  and  not  against  a  victim  alone.  The  victim  

under undue pressure or influence of the accused or under any  

threat or compulsion may resile back but that would not absolve  

the State from bringing the accused to book, who has committed  

an offence and has violated the law of the land.  

Thus,  while  exercising  such  power  the  court  has  to  act  

cautiously before proceeding to quash a prosecution in respect  

of an offence which hits and affects the society at large. It should  

19

be a case where no other view is possible nor any investigation  

or  inquiry  is  further  required.  There  cannot  be  a  general  

proposition of law, so as to fit in as a straitjacket formula for the  

exercise of such power. Each case will have to be judged on its  

own merit and the facts warranting exercise of such power.  

More so, it was not a case of civil nature where there could  

be a possibility of compromise or involving an offence which may  

be compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C., where the Court  

could  apply  the  ratio  of  the  case  in  Madhavrao  Jiwaji  Rao  

Scindia (supra).   

Thus, it is a fit case where the impugned Judgment should  

be set aside and the case be remitted for deciding afresh. As the  

matter is old and we have gone through the entire material on  

record, we have taken this task upon ourselves and examined  

whether  the FIR could have been quashed on other grounds.  

The complainant has submitted before the High Court as well as  

before us on oath that he was in police custody/police protection  

from 7.11.2005  to  9.11.2005  and  he  was  forced  to  write  the  

complaint  against  the Arun Gulab Gawali  gang on 8.11.2005.  

20

Ayesha Qureshi, wife of the complainant, made an application on  

9.11.2005  before  the  Metropolitan  Magistrate  (37th Court)  at  

Esplanade  for  issuing  direction  to  the  police  to  release  her  

husband or produce him before the court. Immediately after filing  

of the said application, Mohd. Qureshi stood released. Again on  

11.11.2005,  Ayesha  Qureshi  sent  a  complaint  to  the  State  

Human Rights Commission stating that her husband had been  

confined in  police  custody,  tortured and was  forcibly  made to  

sign  some papers.   On 12.11.2005,  Mohd.  Qureshi  made an  

application  before  Additional  Chief  Metropolitan  Magistrate  to  

drop  the  proceedings  in  the  FIR/Complaint.  Again  on  

14.11.2005,  Mohd.  Qureshi  made  an  application  before  

Metropolitan  Magistrate  submitting  that  he  did  not  want  to  

proceed  with  the  said  complaint.   The  said  application  was  

rejected  by  the  Metropolitan  Magistrate  vide  order  dated  

17.11.2005.  Mohd. Qureshi and his wife filed the writ  petition  

before the High Court on 29.11.2005 for the withdrawal of the so-  

called police protection and for a judicial inquiry on the issue of  

forcing the complainant to lodge an FIR/Complaint  against the  

21

Arun Gulab Gawali gang.   

26. The matter was heard by the High Court and disposed of,  

issuing a direction that there shall be no police personnel around  

Mohd. Qureshi, his wife and other family members and further  

directing the Police Commissioner to redress their grievances in  

respect of their allegation that Mohd. Qureshi had been forced by  

the police to lodge a complaint against the Arun Gulab Gawali  

gang.   The other  writ  petitions  for  quashing  of  FIR/complaint  

were filed by Mohd. Qureshi, his wife Ayesha Qureshi and Arun  

Gulab Gawali  at  a later  stage i.e.  in April,  2006 and the said  

petitions,  after  contest,  had been allowed  vide Judgment  and  

order dated 27.7.2006.  If  the aforesaid facts are examined in  

correct perspective, it is evident that all possible steps had been  

taken by Ayesha Qureshi in a very close proximity to the date of  

lodging the complaint. At the cost of repetition, we mention again  

that the complaint was lodged on 8.11.2005 and application was  

moved  by  Ayesha  Qureshi  before  the  Chief  Metropolitan  

Magistrate for release of Mohd. Qureshi from police custody or  

22

his production before the court on 9.11.2005.  She approached  

the  State  Human  Rights  Commission  on  11.11.2005  and  all  

other  steps  have  also  been  taken  with  due  diligence  and  

promptness.  Therefore, it cannot be said that such complaints  

had been made by Ayesha Qureshi under any threat or that the  

complainant did not want to support the case of the prosecution  

for some other reason.  There has been a persistent stand taken  

by Ayesha Qureshi that the complaint was not made voluntarily  

and her husband and other family members had been subjected  

to great deal of harassment and persecution by the police for no  

fault  of  theirs.   In such a fact-situation, the possibility that the  

allegations made by Mohd. Qureshi and Ayesha Qureshi in their  

complaints/applications/writ  petitions  may  be  true,  cannot  be  

ruled out.  Thus, it was a fit  case, where in order to meet the  

ends of justice and to prevent the miscarriage of criminal justice,  

the  inherent  powers  of  the  Court  to  quash  the  FIR/complaint  

could have been exercised.   

23

27. Thus,  the  complaint  dated  8.11.2005  lodged  by  Mohd.  

Qureshi against the Arun Gulab Gawali  gang was liable to be  

quashed, though for different reasons, as recorded hereinabove.  

28. In  view  of  the  above,  the  Criminal  Appeal  stands  

dismissed.  

…….....................J.              (P. SATHASIVAM)  

…… ….................J.                                        (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)

New Delhi, August  27, 2010.

24

25