2009 (8) TMI 1239 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the complaint filed by the respondent-complainant was malicious and an abuse of the process of law.
2. Whether the SDJM applied judicial mind while taking cognizance of the complaint.
3. Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the petition u/s 482 CrPC without assigning reasons.

Summary:

Issue 1: Malicious Complaint and Abuse of Process of Law
The Supreme Court observed that the complaint filed by the respondent-complainant, who was one of the guarantors, was lodged with a "completely malicious intent to simply harass the appellants." The complaint was filed almost ten months after the FIR lodged by the bank against the borrower and guarantors for cheating and misappropriation of hypothecated goods. The Court noted that the complaint did not make any concrete allegations against the appellants suggesting the commission of any offence. The Court concluded that the complaint was "nothing but a clear abuse of the judicial process to harass the appellants."

Issue 2: Application of Judicial Mind by SDJM
The Supreme Court criticized the SDJM for setting the criminal law in motion without examining the allegations and averments made in the complaint. The SDJM took cognizance of the case without considering the allegations on merits and without scrutinizing the contents of the complaint and the material documents available on record. The Court emphasized that the SDJM should have dismissed the complaint after realizing that it was a counterblast to the FIR lodged by the bank.

Issue 3: High Court's Error in Dismissing Petition u/s 482 CrPC
The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed a "manifest error" in disposing of the petition filed by the appellants u/s 482 CrPC without even adverting to the basic facts. The Court noted that the High Court should have exercised its jurisdiction to prevent the abuse of the process of law, especially when the allegations made in the complaint were "so absurd and inherently improbable." The Court emphasized that the High Court's refusal to exercise its jurisdiction resulted in injustice, as the criminal proceedings were maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the High Court and quashed the criminal proceedings arising out of Complaint Case No. 916 (c) of 2003. The appeal was allowed, emphasizing that the criminal law should not be set into motion to harass public servants who were merely discharging their duties.