9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (1) TMI 1326 - SC - Indian LawsExercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. - seeking quashment of FIR - HELD THAT - The materials on record pertaining to the pleadings instituted in the Civil Suit produced in this proceeding would reveal that the respondent was in fact ousted from the membership of the trust. In the counter affidavit filed in this proceeding the respondent has virtually admitted the pendency of the suit filed against his removal from the post of Secretary and the trusteeship and its pendency. The factum of passing of adverse orders in the interlocutory applications in the said Civil Suit as also the prima facie finding and conclusion arrived at by the Civil Court that the respondent stands removed from the post of Secretary and also from the trusteeship are also not disputed therein. Then the question is why would the respondent conceal those relevant aspects? The indisputable and undisputed facts (admitted in the counter-affidavit by the respondent) would reveal the existence of the civil dispute on removal of the respondent from the post of Secretary of the school as also from the trusteeship. By non-disclosure the respondent has in troth concealed the existence of a pending civil suit between him and the appellants herein before a competent civil court which obviously is the causative incident for the respondent s allegation of perpetration of the aforesaid offences against the appellants. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the position that in order to cause registration of an F.I.R. and consequential investigation based on the same the petition filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. must satisfy the essential ingredients to attract the alleged offences. In other words if such allegations in the petition are vague and are not specific with respect to the alleged offences it cannot lead to an order for registration of an F.I.R. and investigation on the accusation of commission of the offences alleged. As noticed hereinbefore the respondent alleged commission of offences under Sections 323 384 406 423 467 468 420 and 120B IPC against the appellants. A bare perusal of the said allegation and the ingredients to attract them as adverted to hereinbefore would reveal that the allegations are vague and they did not carry the essential ingredients to constitute the alleged offences. There is absolutely no allegation in the complaint that the appellants herein had caused hurt on the respondent so also they did not reveal a case that the appellants had intentionally put the respondent in fear of injury either to himself or another or by putting him under such fear or injury dishonestly induced him to deliver any property or valuable security. In respect of the issue involved which is of civil nature the respondent had already approached the jurisdictional civil court by instituting a civil suit and it is pending there can be no doubt with respect to the fact that the attempt on the part of the respondent is to use the criminal proceedings as weapon of harassment against the appellants. The indisputable facts that the respondent has filed the pending title suit in the year 2015 he got no case that he obtained an interim relief against his removal from the office of Secretary of the School Managing Committee as also the trusteeship that he filed the stated application for an order for investigation only in April 2017 together with absence of a case that despite such removal he got a right to get informed of the affairs of the school and also the trust would only support the said conclusion. This case invites invocation of the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR registered based on the direction of the Magistrate Court in the afore-stated application and all further proceeding in pursuance thereof - there are no hesitation to hold that permitting continuance of the criminal proceedings against the appellants in the aforesaid circumstances would result in abuse of the process of Court and also in miscarriage of justice. Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Quashment of FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 2. Allegations of mala fide intentions and civil nature of the dispute. 3. Applicability of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 4. Examination of essential ingredients of alleged offences under IPC sections 323, 384, 406, 423, 467, 468, 420, and 120B. Detailed Analysis: 1. Quashment of FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C.: The appellants sought the quashment of FIR No. 189/2017, registered at Madhyamgram Police Station under various sections of the IPC, through an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The High Court declined to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., holding that the case diary and materials prima facie made out a case for investigation. Consequently, the interim stay on further proceedings was vacated, and the petition was dismissed. 2. Allegations of Mala Fide Intentions and Civil Nature of the Dispute: The appellants contended that the allegations in the complaint were actuated by mala fides and pertained to a pure civil dispute. They argued that the respondent had already resorted to civil remedies, including filing Title Suit No. 363/2015, which was pending. The respondent allegedly concealed the pendency of this civil suit and other relevant facts, such as his removal from the post of Secretary and from the membership of the Board of Trustees. The appellants argued that the respondent's application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. did not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence and was used as a tool for oppression and harassment. 3. Applicability of Inherent Powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.: The Supreme Court reiterated that the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised with care, caution, and sparingly. The power should be used to secure the ends of justice and prevent the abuse of the process of law. The Court referred to several precedents, including Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand, Vesa Holdings Private Limited v. State of Kerala, Kapil Aggarwal v. Sanjay Sharma, and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, to emphasize the principles governing the exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 4. Examination of Essential Ingredients of Alleged Offences: The Court examined whether the allegations in the respondent's application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. were sufficient to constitute the alleged offences under IPC sections 323, 384, 406, 423, 467, 468, 420, and 120B. The essential ingredients for each offence were outlined, and the Court found that the allegations were vague and did not carry the essential ingredients to constitute the alleged offences. The Court noted that the respondent's allegations were essentially civil in nature and that he had already resorted to civil remedies, which were pending. Conclusion: The Supreme Court concluded that the respondent's attempt was to use criminal proceedings as a weapon of harassment against the appellants. The Court held that permitting the continuance of the criminal proceedings in the given circumstances would result in the abuse of the process of the Court and miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the registration of FIR No.189/2017 and all further proceedings based on the same were quashed and set aside. The appeal was allowed.
|
