Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Inherent power of High Court – Appellants-accused and respondent no.2complainant belong to same family and are neighbours – In 2015, father of the accused filed suit against the complainant for partition of properties which led to several altercations among the parties – On 29.08.16, complainant filed application u/s.156(3), CrPC alleging that on 19.07.16 when his daughters had gone to public hand pump outside their house for fetching water, the accused persons indulged in indecent gestures towards them and had also beaten them – It was further alleged that on the same day, the accused persons entered the house of complainant and started beating him and his daughters – Application rejected – Another complaint was filed levelling the same allegations made in earlier application – Sessions Judge summoned the appellants – Appellants filed application u/s.482, CrPC – Dismissed – On appeal, held: Dispute regarding property between complainant and father of the appellant was pending much before the alleged incident dtd. 19.07.16 – Fact that on the same date of the incident, the Police visited the spot and drew proceeding u/ss.151, 107 & 116 CrPC against both the parties and they were required to maintain peace is a clear pointer to the nature of quarrel between them – It was more than six weeks thereafter that for the first time an application u/s.156(3), CrPC was filed by the complainant against the accused – Further, Sessions Judge in his summoning order did not believe the second incident in the complaint alleging that the appellants, their father and other accused entered into the house and started beating the complainant and his daughters – Non believing on one part of the alleged incident in the complaint throws shadow of doubt on the earlier part of the incident – On facts, criminal proceedings were initiated by complainant with an ulterior motive due to personal grudge – High Court although noticed the judgment of Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal case but did not examine the facts as to whether present is a case which falls in any of the category enumerated therein – Present case clearly falls in category VII of Bhajan Lal’s case – High Court failed to exercise jurisdiction u/s.482, CrPC – Criminal proceedings against the appellants are quashed – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.323, 354, 452, 504, 506 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012– s.4, 7 & 8.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1.1 The present is a case where parties are related and are neighbours. Civil dispute regarding property is going on between father of the accused and the complainant. It is clear that dispute regarding property between complainant and father of the appellant is pending much before the alleged incident dated
19.07.16. The fact that on the same date of the incident Police visited the spot and has drawn proceeding under Section 151, 107, 116 Cr.P.C. against both the parties and both the parties were required to maintain peace is a clear pointer to the nature of quarrel between the parties. It was more than six weeks thereafter that for the first time an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed by the complainant against the accused in the court of Session Judge. One more fact which transpire from order of Session Judge summoning the accused need to be noted. The complaint against the appellant and other accused refers to two incidents of 19.07.2016. One incident which took place near the Public hand pump outside the house of complainant and second, on the same day in the house of the complainant where he alleged that the appellants, their father and other accused entered into the house and started beating the complainant and his daughters. Sessions Judge in his summonig order did not believe the second incident as alleged in the complaint. Non believing on one part of the incident as alleged in the complaint by the Court clearly throws a shadow of doubt on the earlier part of the incident as alleged. The session judge in the impugned judgment has not taken note of the Civil Suit pending between the parties. [Paras 20-22] [183-E-H; 184-A-B]
1.3 Present is a case where criminal proceedings have been initiated by complainant with an ulterior motive due to private and personal grudge. The High Court although noticed the judgment of this Court in State of Haryana and others versus Bhajan Lal and others in the impugned judgment but did not examine the facts of the case as to whether present is a case which falls in any of the category as enumerated in Bhajan Lal’s case. The present case clearly falls in category VII of Bhajan Lal’s case and the High Court failed to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in quashing the criminal proceeding initiated by the complaint. In permitting Criminal proceedings against the appellant shall be permitting a criminal proceeding which has been maliciously instituted with ulterior motives, permitting such criminal proceeding to go on is nothing but the abuse of the procees of the Court which needs to be interfered by this Court. The criminal proceedings initiated by Complaint Case No.1 of 2017 are quashed. [Paras 23-25] [184-C-E]
State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335 : [1990] 3 Suppl. SCR 259 ; Vineet Kumar and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2017) 13 SCC 369 : [2017] 6 SCR 922 ; State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy (1977) 2 SCC 699 : [1977] 3 SCR 113 ; State of Karnataka v. M.
Devendrappa (2002) 3 SCC 89 : [2002] 1 SCR 275 ; Sunder Babu v. State of T.N. (2009) 14 SCC 244 : [2009]
3 SCR 326 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.