Summary
A son’s criminal complaint against his father, brother and brother-in-law alleged misappropriation and forgery relating to jointly held shares. Applying the stringent test for considering defence material before trial, the Supreme Court found the acquisition records displaced the accusations and the complaint was an attempt at vengeance in a family dispute. It allowed discharge and awarded costs against the complainant.
Issues
- When defence material may justify interference under Section 482 CrPC before trial.
- Whether the share-related complaint constituted an abuse of process warranting discharge.
Provisions considered
- Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The Court applied the Rajiv Thapar test to clear, indubitable defence material displacing the complaint and found continuation an abuse of process. (¶¶ 12, 13)
- Section 245(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The application for discharge was allowed and the contrary orders set aside. (¶ 14)
Held
- Before trial, mere suspicion about the complaint or a contestable defence is insufficient. Defence material must be of sterling quality, displace the accusations, remain unrefuted or incapable of justified refutation, and show that trial would abuse process. (¶ 12)
- The acquisition records showed the father funded the original debentures; the complainant’s later debit entries did not establish the contrary. His exclusive ownership claim required establishment before a competent forum. The circumstances showed the criminal complaint was retaliatory and abusive. (¶¶ 11, 13)
- The appellants were discharged. For initiating frivolous litigation, the complainant was directed to pay Rs.25,000 to each appellant within two months. (¶¶ 14, 15)
Result
Appeal allowed; orders below set aside and discharge application allowed. Complainant to pay each appellant Rs.25,000 costs within two months.