Administration of Justice –Abuse of Process of Law – Civil dispute relating to land given the colour of criminality – Held: There is a huge unexplained delay of over 60 years in initiating dispute with regard to the ownership of the land in question – Criminal case was lodged only after failure to obtain relief in the civil suits coupled with denial of interim relief to the respondent no.2/her family members – Thus, criminal proceedings were resorted to with ulterior motives, for oblique reasons and vengeance – Further, even if the allegations are taken on their face value, no offence is made out under the SC/ST Act against the appellant – The complaint and FIR are frivolous, vexatious and oppressive – High Court fell in error in not invoking its wholesome power u/s.482, CrPC to quash the FIR – Impugned judgment set aside – FIR and any proceedings emanating therefrom, relating to the appellant are quashed – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Penal Code, 1860.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Quashing of FIR – Scope of – Discussed.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Quashing of FIR under special statute – Held: The mere fact that the offence is covered under a ‘special statute’ would not inhibit Supreme Court or the High Court from exercising their respective powers u/Article
142 or s.482, CrPC – Constitution of India – Article 142 – Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Administration of Justice – Administration of Criminal Justice – FIR – Invocation of provision of stringent statutes – Duty of officers – Held: Officers who institute an FIR, based on any complaint, are duty bound to be vigilant before invoking any provision of a very stringent statute, like the SC/ST Act, which imposes serious penal consequences on the concerned accused – Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 –Criminal Law.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
Held: 1.1 The mere fact that the offense is covered under a ‘special statute’ would not inhibit this Court or the High Court from exercising their respective powers under Article 142 of the Constitution or Section 482 of the Code. [Para 34][369-C-D]
1.2 The FIR need not be a detailed one, as it is only to initiate the investigative process and the police should ordinarily be allowed to investigate. This is the general rule, but not a fetter on this Court or the High Court in an appropriate case. [Para 35][370-D-E]
Superintendent of Police CBI v Tapan Kumar Singh, (2003) 6 SCC 175 : [2003] 3 SCR 485; State of Uttar Pradesh v Naresh, (2011) 4 SCC 324 : [2011] 4 SCR 1176 – relied on.
1.3 This Court has been consistent in interfering in such matters where purely civil disputes, more often than not, relating to land and/or money are given the colour of criminality, only for the purposes of exerting extra-judicial pressure on the party concerned, which is nothing but abuse of the process of the court. In the present case, there is a huge and unexplained delay of over 60 years in initiating dispute with regard to the ownership of the land in question, and the criminal case has been lodged only after failure to obtain relief in the civil suits, coupled with denial of relief in the interim therein to the respondent no.2/her family members. It is evident that resort was now being had to criminal proceedings which, in the considered opinion of this Court, is with ulterior motives, for oblique reasons and is a clear case of vengeance. Even if the allegations are taken to be true on their face value, it is not discernible that any offence can be said to have been made out under the SC/ST Act against the appellant. The complaint and FIR are frivolous, vexatious and oppressive. [Paras 36, 37][370-E-H]
1.4 The officers, who institute an FIR, based on any complaint, are duty bound to be vigilant before invoking any provision of a very stringent statute, like the SC/ST Act, which imposes serious penal consequences on the concerned accused. The officer has to be satisfied that the provisions he seeks to invoke prima facie apply to the case at hand. [Para 38][371-A-B]
1.5 The High Court fell in error in not invoking its wholesome power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the FIR. The Impugned Judgment, being untenable in law, is set aside. The FIR, as also any proceedings emanating therefrom, insofar as they relate to the appellant, are quashed and set aside. [Para 39][371-C-D]
State of Haryana v Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : [1990] 3 Suppl. SCR 259; S W Palanitkar v State of Bihar (2002) 1 SCC 24; State of Karnataka v M Devendrappa (2002) 3 SCC 89 : [2002] 1 SCR 275; Uma Shankar Gopalika v State of Bihar (2005) 10 SCC 336; Parbatbhai Aahir v State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC
641 : [2017] 10 SCR 12; State of Telangana v Habib Abdullah Jeelani (2017) 2 SCC 779 : [2017] 1 SCR 141; Vinod Natesan v State of Kerala (2019) 2 SCC 401; Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v State of Maharashtra (2019) 14 SCC 350; Mahendra K C v State of Karnataka 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1021; Arnab Manoranjan
Goswami v State of Maharashtra (2021) 2 SCC 427; Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v State of Maharashtra 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315; Ramawatar v State of Madhya Pradesh 2021 SCC OnLine SC 966 – relied on.
Govind Prasad Kejriwal v State of Bihar (2020) 16 SCC 714; Commissioner of Police v Devender Anand 2019 SCC OnLine SC 966; Binod Kumar v State of Bihar (2014) 10 SCC 663 : [2014] 11 SCR 85; Indian Oil Corporation v NEPC India Ltd. (2006) 6 SCC 736 : [2006] 3 Suppl. SCR 704; G Sagar Suri v State of Uttar Pradesh (2000) 2 SCC 636 : [2000] 1 SCR 417; State of Madhya Pradesh v Surendra Kori (2012) 10 SCC
155 : [2012] 8 SCR 858; Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel v State of Gujarat (2018) 3 SCC 104 : [2018] 1 SCR 62; Satvinder Kaur v State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (1999) 8 SCC 728 : [1999] 3 Suppl. SCR 348; P Chidambaram v Directorate of Enforcement (2019) 9 SCC 24 : [2019] 12 SCR 172; Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited v State of Uttar Pradesh (2021) 5 SCC 795; Union of India v Prakash P Hinduja (2003)
6 SCC 195 : [2003] 1 Suppl. SCR 307 – 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.