Allahabad High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Initiated With Malicious Intent as a Counter-Blast

The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, has quashed criminal proceedings against three individuals, holding that the complaint was “manifestly attended with mala fide” and “maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance.” Justice Brij Raj Singh, exercising the court’s inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), concluded that the complaint was a counter-blast to prior FIRs lodged by the applicants.

The court was hearing an application to quash the entire proceedings of a complaint case pending before the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Sultanpur, including the summoning order issued against the applicants for offences under Sections 323, 504, 506, 354, and 511 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) and Section 7/8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The applicants were represented by Advocates Abhineet Jaiswal and Rani Singh. The State was represented by the Government Advocate, along with Advocates Banwari Lal and Bhup Chandra Singh for the opposite party.

Background of the Case

The matter originated from an incident on August 27, 2019. Applicant no. 1, Virendra Tiwari, had lodged an FIR (Case Crime No. 533 of 2019) against Acheram Tiwari (husband of opposite party no. 2), Sanjay Tiwari, and Anil Tiwari. The FIR alleged that the accused had molested the 16-year-old niece of applicant no. 1.

Video thumbnail

On the same day, when the police arrived at the scene following a call from applicant no. 1, the police party was allegedly attacked by Acheram Tiwari and his brothers. This led to the police lodging a separate FIR (Case Crime No. 534 of 2019) against them for offences including attempt to murder and assault on a public servant. The police completed investigations in both cases and filed charge sheets against Acheram Tiwari and his brothers.

READ ALSO  इलाहाबाद हाईकोर्ट ने तीन साल से लापता वकील को ढूंढने के लिए पुलिस को एक माह का समय दिया

Subsequently, on September 12, 2019, fifteen days after the initial FIRs were filed, Sumitra Tiwari (opposite party no. 2 and wife of Acheram Tiwari) moved an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. before the Special Court, accusing the applicants of offences under the IPC and POCSO Act. The court treated it as a complaint case, recorded statements, and issued summons against the applicants.

Arguments of the Parties

Counsel for the applicants argued that the complaint was a “counter-blast” and filed with malicious intent to pressure them into withdrawing the cases against the opposite party’s husband and brothers-in-law. It was submitted that the complaint was filed “in order to wreak vengeance” and that the applicants no. 2 and 3 were made accused because they were witnesses in the FIRs lodged earlier.

The applicants’ counsel further contended that the opposite party no. 2 had suppressed the material fact of the pre-existing FIRs in her complaint. A police report, sought by the learned judge on the Section 156(3) application, had stated that the complaint appeared to be false and lodged due to personal vengeance. The applicants argued that the summoning order was passed without giving due consideration to this police report.

READ ALSO  Contractual Employees Have No Right to Seek Renewal or Continuance Against Policy Change: Allahabad High Court

In support of their case, the applicants relied on the landmark Supreme Court judgment in State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors., specifically pointing to the seventh category of cases where the High Court can exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.: “Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”

The State, on the other hand, argued that the summoning order was correctly passed after considering the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C., which prima facie made out an offence.

Court’s Analysis and Decision

After hearing the submissions and reviewing the records, Justice Brij Raj Singh found merit in the applicants’ arguments. The Court observed, “the present complaint has been lodged out of mala fide intention, after a lapse of 15 days from the date of lodging of the FIR by applicant no.1 against the husband and brother-in-laws of the opposite party no.2.”

The judgment noted the non-disclosure of the previous FIRs by the complainant. The Court stated, “It also appears that opposite party no.2 instituted the said complaint just to settle her personal score and made allegation of outraging modesty of her niece so that the criminal colour can be given and the matter can be settled between the parties.”

READ ALSO  Supreme Court: Tribunal Cannot Reduce Expert's Disability Assessment on "Mere Conjectures"

The Court explicitly held that the principles laid down in the Bhajan Lal case were applicable. The judgment stated, “I am of the view that the law enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra), particularly the seven points, wherein, it is provided that if the complaint is out of vengeance, then the Court can interfere under Section 482 Cr.P.C.”

Finding that the solemn process of the court was being abused, the High Court allowed the application. The judgment concluded, “the entire proceedings arising out of Complaint Case No.02 of 2020 (Sumitra Tiwari Vs. Virendra Tiwari and Others) pending in the Court of Learned Court of Additional Session Judge/ Special Judge POCSO Act, Court No. 12, Sultanpur are hereby quashed.”

Law Trend
Law Trendhttps://lawtrend.in/
Legal News Website Providing Latest Judgments of Supreme Court and High Court

Related Articles

Latest Articles