Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 482 – Saving of inherent powers of High Court – Political animosity between petitioner No.1 and Ex. MLA – Complaint u/s. 365/511 IPC and s. 3(1)(Dha) of the 1989 Act by respondent no. 2 against the petitioners – Sessions Judge took cognizance of the charges against the petitioners and issued summons – Application u/s. 482 by the petitioner seeking quashing of the proceedings as well as the cognizance order – High Court dismissed the application – Petitioners case that this is a case of malicious prosecution arisen due to political rivalry – Held: Complaint may have been initiated by reason of political vendetta is not in itself ground for quashing the criminal proceedings – Possibility of retaliation on the part of the petitioners by the acts alleged, after closure of the earlier criminal case cannot be ruled out – Allegations in the complaint constitute offence under the Attrocities Act, which would have to be decided in the trial – In exercise of power u/s. 482, the Court does not examine the correctness of the allegations in a complaint except in exceptionally rare cases where it is patently clear that the allegations are frivolous or do not disclose any offence – Complaint case not such which should be quashed at the inception itself without further trial – Thus, the High Court rightly dismissed the application u/s. 482 – Penal Code, 1860 – s. 365/511 – Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 – s. 3(1)(Dha). Dismissing the Special Leave Petition, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Even though, the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to interfere with criminal proceedings is wide, such power has to be exercised with circumspection, in exceptional cases. Jurisdiction under Section
482 of the Cr.P.C is not to be exercised for the asking.In exceptional cases, to prevent abuse of the process of Court, the High Court might in exercise of its inherent powers under Section
482 quash criminal proceedings. However, interference would only be justified when complaint did not disclose any offence, or was patently frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. [Para 27, 29] [347-G-H; 348-B-C]
1.2 The fact that the complaint may have been initiated by reason of political vendetta is not in itself ground for quashing the criminal proceedings. It is a well established proposition of law that a criminal prosecution, if otherwise justified and based upon adequate evidence, does not become vitiated on account of mala fides or political vendetta of the first informant or complainant. If the use of power is of fulfilment of a legitimate object the actuation or catalysation by malice is not legicidal. [Para 30][348-C-D]
2. On facts, there was apparently political rivalry between the petitioner No.1 and Ex-MLA. However, Complaint Case No. 19/2018 has not been lodged against the Petitioners, by Ex-MLA, but by the respondent No.2, a Dhobi by caste, which is a scheduled caste. It cannot be said that the allegations in the complaint do not make out offence under the Atrocities Act. It is specifically alleged that the petitioners had abused the respondent No.2 in filthy language by reference to his caste. The allegations in the Complaint Case No.19 of 2018, if established, could result in conviction under the relevant sub-sections of Section 3(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989. [Para 24][347-B-C]
2.2 Respondent No.2 being an employee of Ex-MLA, it is possible that Complaint Case No.19/2018 may have been prompted by political vendetta against the petitioner No.1. However, since the allegations in the complaint case make out an offence u/s.3 of the Atrocities Act, it would not be proper to nip the complaint in the bud, more so, when there are statements recorded in Court under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The possibility of retaliation on the part of the Petitioners by the acts alleged in the complaint, after closure of the earlier complaint No.17 of 2010 cannot be ruled out. Quashing the criminal proceedings at the very inception might result in injustice. [Para 25][347-D-E]
2.3 Criminal proceedings cannot be nipped in the bud by exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. only because the complaint has been lodged by a political rival. It is possible that a false complaint may have been lodged at the behest of a political opponent. However, such possibility would not justify interference under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings. The possibility of retaliation on the part of the petitioners by the acts alleged, after closure of the earlier criminal case cannot be ruled out. The allegations in the complaint constitute offence under the Attrocities Act. Whether the allegations are true or untrue, would have to be decided in the trial. In exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Court does not examine the correctness of the allegations in a complaint except in exceptionally rare cases where it is patently clear that the allegations are frivolous or do not disclose any offence. The Complaint Case No.19/2018 is not such a case which should be quashed at the inception itself without further Trial. The High Court rightly dismissed the application under Section
482 Cr.P.C.The impugned judgment and order of the High Court is not interfered with. [Para 39, 40][354-D-H] Shantaben Bhurabhai Bhuriya v. Anand Athabhai Chaudhari and Ors. 2021 SCC Online SC 974; Monica Kumar (Dr.) v. State of U.P (2008) 8 SCC 781 : [2008]
9 SCR 943; Mrs. Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar AIR 1990 SC 494 : [1989] Suppl. SCR 165;
Sheonandan Paswan v. Others (1987) 1 SCC 288 : [1987] 1 SCR 702; State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh (1980) 2 SCC 471 : [1980] 1 SCR 1071; Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and Ors. (1983) 1 SCC 1 : [1983] 1 SCR 884; State of Andhra Pradesh v. Gourieshetty Mahesh (2010) 6 SCC 588; Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttrakhand (2013) 11 SCC 673; Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre (1988) 1 SCC 692 : [1988] 2 SCR 930; Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal (2007) 12 SCC 1 : [2007] 10 SCR 847; Kapil Agarwal & Ors. v. Sanjay Sharma & Others (2021) 5 SCC 524; State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Ors. 1992 Suppl
(1) SCC 335 : [1990] 3 Suppl. SCR 259; Hamida v. Rashid @ Rasheed and Others (2008) 1 SCC
474:[2007] 5 SCR 937 – 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.