Krishna Lal Chawla & Ors. vs State of U.P. & Anr.

HELD: 1.1 Any further complaint by the same complainant against the same accused, after the case has already been registered, will be deemed to be an improvement from the original complaint. [Para 5][561-D-E]

Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash & Ors. (2004) 13 SCC

292 – relied on

1.2 Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees that the right to life and liberty shall not be taken away except by due process of law. Permitting multiple complaints by the same party in respect of the same incident, whether it involves a cognizable or private complaint offence, will lead to the accused being entangled in numerous criminal proceedings. As such, he would be forced to keep surrendering his liberty and precious time before the police and the Courts, as and when required in each case. Such an absurd and mischievous interpretation of the provisions of the CrPC will not stand the test of constitutional scrutiny, and therefore cannot be adopted. [Para 6][562-D-E]

T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala (2001) 6 SCC 181 : [2001]

3 SCR 942; Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI & Anr. (2013) 6 SCC 348 : [2013] 6 SCR 623 – relied on

1.3 Thus, it is incumbent upon this Court to preserve the delicate balance between the power to investigate offences under the CrPC, and the fundamental right of the individual to be free from frivolous and repetitive criminal prosecutions forced upon him by the might of the State. [Para 7][563-B-C]

1.4 If Respondent No. 2 was aggrieved by lack of speedy investigation in the earlier case filed by him, the appropriate remedy would have been to apply to the Magistrate under Section 155(2), CrPC for directions to the police in this regard. Filing a private complaint without any prelude, after a gap of six years from the date of giving information to the police, smacks of mala fide on the part of Respondent No. 2. [Para 7][563-C-D]

1.5 It is also crucial to note that, in the fresh complaint case, Respondent No. 2 seems to have deliberately suppressed the material fact that a charge-sheet was already filed in relation to the same incident, against him and his wife, pursuant to NCR No.160/2012 (Crime No. 283/2017) filed by Appellant No.1’s son. No reference to this charge-sheet is found in the private complaint, or in the statements under Section 200, CrPC filed by Respondent No. 2 and his wife. In fact, both the private complaint and the statement filed on behalf of his wife, merely state that the police officials have informed them that investigation is ongoing pursuant to their NCR No.158/2012. The wife’s statement additionally even states that no action has been taken so far by the police. It is the litigant’s bounden duty to make a full and true disclosure of facts. It is a matter of trite law, and yet bears repetition, that suppression of material facts before a court amounts to abuse of the process of the court, and shall be dealt with a heavy hand. [Para 8][563-D-G]

Ram Dhan v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2012) 5 SCC 536:[2012] 3 SCR 1059; K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd., (2008) 12 SCC 481:[2008] 10 SCR 454 – relied on

1.6 It is also pertinent to note that as on 5.08.2012, Appellant No.1 was a 76-year-old man; Appellant No.2 was suffering from epileptic seizures; and Appellant No. 4 was of unsound mind. There is no equity in allowing them to be dragged into criminal proceedings pertaining to a petty offence, instituted

6 years after the alleged incident. The sword of Damocles cannot be allowed to forever hang on their heads, falling unpredictably at the whims of a litigant seeking to harass and persecute at will. The right under Article 21 of the Constitution, which encapsulates the right to a speedy trial would include not only the actual trial before the Court, but also the preceding stages of inquiry and police investigation as well. [Para 9][563-G-H; 564-A-B]

Vakil Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar (2009) 3 SCC

355 : [2009] 1 SCR 517; Abdul Rehman Antulay & Ors. v. R.S. Nayak & Anr. (1992) 1 SCC 225 : [1991] 3 Suppl. SCR 325 – relied on.

1.7 Thus, respondent No. 2’s institution of the fresh complaint case in 2018 under Section 200 CrPC was a concerted effort to mislead the Magistrate with the oblique motive of harassing the appellants with a frivolous and vexatious case against them. That the same was a counter-blast to the charge sheet dated 17.09.2017 filed against respondent No. 2 and his wife in the case registered by the appellant. The history of ill-will and malice between the parties leads further credence to respondent No.2’s motivations for tying up the appellants in frivolous and harrowing criminal litigation, long years after the alleged incident. Respondent No.2’s conduct in filing a delayed complaint case, suppressing material facts, and utilising fresh proceedings to materially improve on his earlier version, in totality, amounts to gross abuse of the process of court. [Para 10][564-C-E]

2.1. The justice dispensation machinery in India is plagued with backlogs, with 70% of the pendency before the subordinate courts being on the criminal side. A significant factor in this backlog is the vast mass of frivolous litigation instituted year after year by litigants with an intent to use the courts of justice for their own mischievous ends. Curtailing such vexatious litigation is, thus, a crucial step towards a more effective justice system – a step that cannot be taken without the active involvement of the lower judiciary, especially in criminal proceedings. [Para 11] [564-F-H]

Roshni Sinha, ‘Examining pendency of cases in the Judiciary’, PRS India (August 8, 2019) – referred to

2.2 Sections 154 and 200 Cr.P.C make it abundantly clear that the Magistrate carries the stream of criminal proceeding forward after it is set in motion by the informant/complainant. Consequently, and automatically, the Magistrate also carries the responsibility for ensuring this stream does not carry forward in cases where it should not. The aforesaid powers bestowed on the Magistrate have grave repercussions on individual citizens’ life and liberty. Thus, these powers also confer great responsibility on the shoulders of the Magistrate – and must be exercised with great caution, and after suitable judicial application of mind. [Paras

12 and 13][565-B-D]

Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998)

5 SCC 749 : [1997] 5 Suppl. SCR 12 – relied on.

2.3 The power conferred on the Magistrate under Section 202, CrPC to postpone the issue of process pursuant to a private complaint also provides an important avenue for filtering out of frivolous complaints that must be fully exercised. [Para 14] [566-A-B]

Chandra Deo Singh v. Prokash Chandra Bose & Anr., AIR 1963 SC 1430 : [1964] SCR 639 – relied on.

2.4 It is said that every trial is a voyage of discovery in which the truth is the quest. In India, typically, the Judge is not actively involved in ‘fact-finding’ owing to the adversarial nature of justice system in India. However, Section 165 of the Evidence Act, 1872 by providing the Judge with the power to order production of material and put forth questions of any form at any time, marks the influence of inquisitorial processes in legal system. This wide-ranging power further demonstrates the central role played by the Magistrate in the quest for justice and truth in criminal proceedings, and must be judiciously employed to stem the flow of frivolous litigation. [Para 15][566-F-H]

2.5 Thus, the Trial Judge has a duty under the Constitution and the CrPC, to identify and dispose of frivolous litigation at an early stage by exercising, substantially and to the fullest extent, the powers conferred on him. [Para 16][567-A-B] All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India (1992)

1 SCC 119 : [1991] 2 Suppl. SCR 206 – relied on.

2.6 Frivolous litigation should not become the order of the day in India. From misusing the Public Interest Litigation jurisdiction of the Indian courts to abusing the criminal procedure for harassing their adversaries, the justice delivery system should not be used as a tool to fulfil personal vendetta. [Para 17][567-DE]

2.7 A falsely accused person not only suffers monetary damages but is exposed to disrepute and stigma from society. While running from pillar to post to find a lawyer to represent his case and arranging finances to defend himself before the court of law, he loses a part of himself. The trial courts and the Magistrates have an important role in curbing this injustice. They are the first lines of defence for both the integrity of the criminal justice system, and the harassed and distraught litigant. The trial courts have the power to not merely decide on acquittal or conviction of the accused person after the trial, but also the duty to nip frivolous litigations in the bud even before they reach the stage of trial by discharging the accused in fit cases. This would not only save judicial time that comes at the cost of public money, but would also protect the right to liberty that every person is entitled to under Article 21 of the Constitution. In this context, the trial Judges have as much, if not more, responsibility in safeguarding the fundamental rights of the citizens of India as the highest court of this land. [Paras 17 and 18][567-H; 568-A-D]

Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India (2014) 8 SCC

470 : [2014] 12 SCR 573 – relied on.

2.8 The present controversy poses a typical example of frivolous litigants abusing court process to achieve their mischievous ends. In the case, the Magistrate was aware of the significant delay in the filing of private complaint by Respondent No. 2, and of the material improvements from the earlier NCR No. 158/2012 which were made in the private complaint. It was incumbent on the Magistrate to examine any possibility of abuse of process of the court, make further enquiries, and dismiss the frivolous complaint at the outset after judicial application of mind. However, the Magistrate issued process against the appellants by order dated 4.04.2019, and this controversy has now reached this Court for disposal. [Paras 19 and 20][568-D-F]

3.1 This Court has inherent powers to prevent the abuse of its own processes, that this Court shall not suffer a litigant utilising the institution of justice for unjust means. Thus, it would be only proper for this Court to deny any relief to a litigant who attempts to pollute the stream of justice by coming to it with his unclean hands. Similarly, a litigant pursuing frivolous and vexatious proceedings cannot claim unlimited right upon court time and public money to achieve his ends. [Para 21][568-G-H]

3.2 This Court’s inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do ‘complete justice’ empowers to give preference to equity and a justice-oriented approach over the strict rigours of procedural law. It is the constitutional duty of this Court to quash criminal proceedings that were instituted by misleading the court and abusing its processes of law, only with a view to harass the hapless litigants. In order to do complete justice, and to bring peace between the parties, who are fighting various litigations since 2006, in exercise of powers under Article 142, all the litigations between the parties arising out of this incident are quashed. [Paras 22 and 23][569-A-D]

State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (Whitewasher) (2014) 8 SCC 883 : [2014] 8 SCR 228; Monica Kumar (Dr.) & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2008) 8 SCC 781 : [2008]

9 SCR 943 – relied on.

Sirajul & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh

(2015) 9 SCC 201: [2015] 6 SCR 1021; State of

Haryana v. Bhajan Lal AIR 1992 SCC 604 : [1990]

3 Suppl. SCR 259 – referred to.