Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – FIR and charge-sheet – Quashing of – FIR was registered against appellant-accused u/ss. 468, 471, 406 and 120-B of IPC – Appellant-accused claim themselves to be spiritual leaders and are related to a religious/spiritual society – It was alleged that appellant-accused had committed theft as well as criminal breach of trust in respect of a bus – Appellant-accused sought quashing of the criminal proceedings – High Court dismissed the criminal revisions – On appeal, held: As per the case of the complainant, the alleged incident of bus theft had taken place in the year 2001, and it was only in 2009 that the substantial complaint was made in the Court of CJM – No concrete action was taken with regard to the alleged theft of bus for a long period of eight years, till filing of complaint in the year 2009 – There is no substantial material or document produced by the complainant to substantiate the allegations against the appellants – Even after investigation, there was no evidence collected by the investigating officer to prima facie satisfy ingredients of alleged offences – Allegations made in the complaint and the chargesheet taken at their face value none of the ingredients of the offences are made out – No expert opinion obtained or scientific evidence collected on documents allegedly forged to show as to by whom, when and how the theft of vehicle and forgery of documents were committed – Respondent-complainant has misused and abused the process of law to settle personal scores with the appellants – In the facts and circumstances, criminal proceedings against the appellants quashed.
Administration of Justice – Abuse of process of any Court – discussed.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. It is again pertinent to note that, even as per the case of the complainant, the alleged incident of bus theft had taken place in the year 2001, and it was only in 2009 that the substantial complaint was made in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate. It is just not believable that the concerned Police Station, Kolkata would not have taken any action on the report made in 2002 on behalf of the powerful body like the religious/spiritual Society in Kolkata, or on the letter dated 30.09.2006 written by the Branch Manager of the Society, Kolkata. The respondent no. 2complainant also did not take any concrete action for getting the said complaint registered with regard to the alleged theft of bus for a long period of eight years, till the complaint in the Court was filed in the year 2009. In the opinion of the Court such an inordinate delay of eight years in filing the complaint in the court itself would be a sufficient ground to quash the proceedings. If the luxury bus owned by the religious society, Kolkata Branch in 1998 was so precious to them, they would not have sat silent for such a long time of eight years. In opinion of this Court, the criminal machinery set into motion by filing the complaint for the alleged incident which had taken place eight years ago, that act itself was nothing but a sheer misuse and abuse of the process of the court. [Para 11][663-D-G]
2. That apart, from the bare perusal of the complaint filed before the Court, on the basis of which the FIR was registered at the Police Station on 20th February, 2009, it is discernible that except bald allegations made in the complaint with regard to the theft of bus in question there was no material or document produced by the complainant to substantiate the allegations against the appellants. Even after the investigation of the said complaint, there was no evidence collected by the investigating officer to prima facie satisfy the ingredients constituting the alleged offences under Sections 468, 471, 406 and 120B of IPC. Even if the allegations made in the complaint as well as in the Chargesheet are taken at their face value none of the ingredients constituting the alleged offences are culled out. The Senior Counsel for the appellants had strenuously urged relying upon the documents pertaining to the transfer of ownership and ANR.
registration of the said bus, that the said documents were executed by the then authorized persons of the religious society in Kolkata, in opinion of this Court, the said documents could not be considered in these proceedings, the same being not the part of the charge-sheet papers. In any case, there is nothing to suggest from the other documents on record of the instant appeals that the investigating officer had even bothered to collect any cogent or substantive evidence against the appellants to prosecute them for the alleged offences. There was no expert opinion obtained or scientific evidence collected on the documents allegedly forged to show as to by whom, when and how the theft of vehicle and forgery of documents were committed. Under the circumstances, allowing such prosecution to continue would not only be an empty formality but would be gross wastage of court’s precious time. [Para 12][663-G-H; 664-A-E]
3. In the light of afore-stated legal position, if the facts of the case are appreciated, there remains no shadow of doubt that the complaint filed by the respondent-complainant after an inordinate unexplained delay of eight years was nothing but sheer misuse and abuse of the process of law to settle the personal scores with the appellants, and that continuation of such malicious prosecution would also be further abuse and misuse of process of law, more particularly when neither the allegations made in the complaint nor in the chargesheet, disclose any prima facie case against the appellants. The allegations made against the appellants are so absurd and improbable that no prudent person can ever reach to a conclusion that there is a sufficient ground for proceeding against the appellants-accused. [Para 17][666-FG]
4. In view of this judgment, the other set of petitions filed against the order of the High Court wherein the High Court directed Judicial Magistrate to fix charge and conclude trial taking recourse to s.309 Cr.P.C. do not survive and stand disposed of accordingly. [Paras 1 and 2][668-D]
Dalip Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2010) 2 SCC 114 : [2009] 16 SCR 111; Subrata Roy Sahara vs. Union of India and Others (2014) 8 SCC
470 : [2014] 12 SCR 573 – relied on.
Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Maninder Singh (2016) 1 SCC 389 : [2015] 10 SCR 277; State of Gujarat Vs. Gajanand M. Dalwadi (Dead) by LRS. (2008) 1 SCC 716 : [2007] 13 SCR 913; Jasbir Singh vs. Tara Singh and Ors. (2016) 16 SCC 441 : [2015]
10 SCR 61; Jagdish Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (2004) 4 SCC 432 : [2004] 2 SCR 846; Kaptan Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2021) 9 SCC 35; Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Arvind Khanna (2019) 10 SCC 686 : [2019] 13 SCR 470; State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Ors. (1977) 2 SCC
699 : [1977] 3 SCR 113; State of A.P. Vs. Golconda Linga Swamy & Another (2004) 6 SCC 522 : [2004] 3 Supp. SCR 147; Hasmukhlal D. Vora & Anr. vs. State of Tamil Nadu 2022 SCC Online SC 1732 – referred to.
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.