In a significant judgment, the High Court of Chhattisgarh has quashed a First Information Report (FIR) filed against Munmun Singh, emphasizing that malicious prosecution should not be allowed to harass individuals. The court’s decision came in Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1741 of 2023, where Munmun Singh had challenged an FIR registered against him for alleged fraud in obtaining employment and manipulating educational records.
Case Background:
The case stems from a family property dispute involving Munmun Singh and his aunt, Chandrakanti Devi. Munmun Singh, who was adopted by his uncle Lalgovind Singh, had secured employment in South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL) after Lalgovind was medically discharged. Following Lalgovind’s death in 2018, a dispute arose over ancestral property, leading to a series of complaints filed by Chandrakanti Devi’s husband, Govind Singh, alleging fraud in Munmun’s employment and educational records.
Key Legal Issues:
1. Validity of the FIR registration under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC)
2. Suppression of material facts in previous legal proceedings
3. Abuse of the criminal justice system in civil disputes
4. Scope of the High Court’s power under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings
Court’s Decision and Observations:
The division bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Sachin Singh Rajput allowed the petition and quashed both the FIR and the lower court orders. The court made several important observations:
1. On malicious prosecution:
“It is wholly impermissible in the case that when the husband failed to obtain relief from the Court, he bring his wife into picture to harass the petitioner who acted on the instruction of her husband.”
2. On the nature of the complaint:
“The complainant/respondent No. 2 and her husband are not the aggrieved party in the case because no act of any cheating against them is alleged. The act of cheating is alleged against the S.E.C.L. or the school in whose record the tempering is said to have been done.”
3. On the credibility of allegations:
“The allegations made in the FIR are inherently improbable and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the petitioner herein.”
Also Read
The court relied on several Supreme Court judgments, including State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Manoj Kumar Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh, to emphasize that the power to quash FIRs should be exercised sparingly and in the rarest of rare cases.
Parties and Legal Representatives:
– Petitioner: Munmun Singh, represented by Advocate Shashi Bhushan
– Respondents:
1. State of Chhattisgarh, represented by Panel Lawyer Malay Jain
2. Chandrakanti Devi, represented by Advocate Puneet Ruparel
