The Delhi High Court has quashed a 17-year-old criminal case against academician and activist Madhu Kishwar, observing that the FIR was filed with malicious intent as a “counter blast” to a case in which the complainant was later convicted.
Justice Amit Mahajan, while allowing Kishwar’s plea to quash the 2008 FIR registered under Sections 307 (attempt to murder), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code, said continuing such proceedings would amount to an abuse of the court’s process.
The case stemmed from an incident that took place on December 31, 2007, involving an altercation between Kishwar and the complainant’s family over alleged shop allotments at Sewa Nagar Market in Kotla Mubarakpur, Delhi.
The complainant alleged that Kishwar instructed her driver to run over her and her family members with a car during the dispute, and that Kishwar and her associates assaulted them, causing serious injuries. The FIR against Kishwar was lodged in June 2008.
Kishwar’s counsel, however, contended that the FIR was a retaliatory measure filed after she had registered a case against the complainant and her family for assaulting her and her driver. The defence maintained that Kishwar, who was authorised to monitor civic discipline and report unauthorised construction in the area, was attacked when she and volunteers tried to photograph encroachments allegedly linked to the complainant’s son.
The high court noted that the complainant had already been convicted by the trial court in the FIR filed by Kishwar for the same incident.
Justice Mahajan remarked,
“Even if the allegations of the complainant are taken at the highest, considering the complainant’s conviction in a case arising out of the same incident, the same can at best be considered as a self-defence or an altercation at the stage when the complainant had formed an unlawful assembly and caused injuries to the petitioner and another person.”
The court emphasised that criminal proceedings cannot be allowed to continue merely because the complaint discloses a cognisable offence if the intention behind it is malicious.
“The subject FIR appears to be in the nature of defence and a maliciously motivated counter blast… for wreaking vengeance upon the petitioner,” the court said.
It further observed that the trial court’s findings had “clearly indicated that respondent no.4 along with other accused persons had formed an unlawful assembly with the purpose of stopping the petitioner from clicking photographs and had given beatings to the petitioner and her driver.”
Finding the FIR to be retaliatory and devoid of bona fide intent, the Delhi High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against Madhu Kishwar.
Justice Mahajan concluded that allowing the case to proceed any further would “constitute an abuse of the process of law,” as the complainant’s conviction for the same incident had already attained finality.
