Summary
The Supreme Court quashed a criminal case under Sections 448 and 506 IPC because the FIR alleged the appellants threatened the complainant to withdraw civil suits that had in fact been filed by the appellants themselves; the allegations were absurd and the prosecution was a malicious offshoot of a long-running civil property dispute.
Issues
- Whether the High Court erred in refusing to quash, under Section 482 CrPC, criminal proceedings alleging house-trespass and criminal intimidation arising out of a civil property dispute.
- Whether the case fell within the categories in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal for quashing criminal proceedings.
Provisions considered
- Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The Court held that the inherent power to prevent abuse of process should have been exercised, as the case fell within categories 1, 3, 5 and 7 of paragraph 102 of Bhajan Lal, and quashed the chargesheet, summoning order and further proceedings. (¶¶ 1, 8, 20, 22, 24, 25)
- Sections 448 and 506, Indian Penal Code, 1860These were the offences named in the FIR (house-trespass and criminal intimidation, alleged as threats to make the complainant withdraw civil suits); the Court found the allegations absurd because the complainant had filed no suit. (¶¶ 5, 16)
- Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908A temporary injunction under these rules had been granted in the appellants' favour restraining respondent No.2 and his siblings from interfering with their possession, which showed who was the suitor in the civil litigation. (¶¶ 3, 15)
Held
- Where the record showed that it was the accused who had filed both civil suits (for injunction and for declaration of title) and had obtained a temporary injunction, an FIR alleging that they threatened the complainant with death unless he withdrew the suits was absurd, since the complainant had no suit to withdraw. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16)
- Earlier proceedings in which the appellants were acquitted of similar threat allegations by the complainant, and a separate complaint by his brother that the High Court had quashed, showed that the complainant and his relatives habitually filed false and malicious cases arising from the civil dispute. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18, 19)
- Applying Bhajan Lal, and mindful that the power is to be used sparingly, the case fell within categories 1, 3, 5 and 7 of paragraph 102: the prosecution was mala fide, instituted with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance, and its continuation would be an abuse of the process of law. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22, 23, 24)
- The appeal abated as regards appellant No.2, who died while it was pending. (¶ 11)
Result
Appeal allowed (abated as to appellant No.2); High Court order of 14.11.2013 set aside; the chargesheet in C.C. No. 29027/2010, the summoning order of 26.06.2010 and all consequent proceedings quashed.