TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 841X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he proceedings are instituted with an oblique motive, or on manufactured evidence. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 283 OF 2021, (arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 6432/2020) - - - Dated:- 8-3-2021 - JUDGMENT MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J. Leave granted. 2. This appeal arises out of final order and judgement of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (hereinafter, High Court ) dated 28.09.2020, dismissing the Miscellaneous Petition No. 2561 of 2020 filed by Appellants herein praying for quashing of Signature Not Verified the following orders: Digitally signed by GULSHAN KUMAR ARORA Date: 2021.03.08 16:07:42 IST Reason: (i) Order dated 4.04.2019 of Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut (hereinafter, Magistrate ) in Complaint Case No. 2943/2018, issuing summons against the Appellants; (ii) Order dated 13.01.2020 of the Ld. Additional District and Sessions Judge, Meerut (hereinafter, Sessions Judge ) in Criminal Revision No.202/2019, dismissing the Appellants revision application against the aforesaid summoning order. 3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are as follows: 3.1 The Appellants and R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 506 of the IPC. Subsequently, the Magistrate framed charges against Respondent No. 2 and his wife. There is nothing on record to show that even a single witness has been examined till date, though charges were framed by the Magistrate long back. Thus, there has been considerable delay in these proceedings, during both the investigation and trial stages. 3.6 Being unsatisfied with the allegations made and charge sheet filed against him, the Respondent No. 2 instituted a fresh private complaint against the Appellants under Section 200 of CrPC in Complaint Case No. 2943 of 2018 in respect of the very incident that took place on 5.08.2012. This private complaint was filed only on 11.05.2018, that is about six years from the date of alleged incident. In the private complaint, not only new allegations were added but all allegations are wilder and different from the averments made in NCR No. 158/12, though the incident is the same as of 5.08.2012 and between the same parties. It may not be necessary for us to narrate the contents of the private complaint inasmuch as we find and have satisfied ourselves that the allegations made in the private complaint are absolute material improveme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hen, in our opinion, such conclusion would lead to serious consequences. This will be clear from the hypothetical example given hereinbelow i.e. if in regard to a crime committed by the real accused he takes the first opportunity to lodge a false complaint and the same is registered by the jurisdictional police then the aggrieved victim of such crime will be precluded from lodging a complaint giving his version of the incident in question, consequently he will be deprived of his legitimated right to bring the real accused to book. This cannot be the purport of the Code. Therefore, Upkar Singh clarified that this Court s previous decision in T.T. Anthony will not bar the filing of a second complaint with respect to the same incident, if such second complaint is filed as a counter complaint by the other party. We are in agreement with the aforementioned construction of T.T. Anthony. However, we fail to see how this position of law comes to Respondent No.2 s rescue. The question posed in the present case for consideration before us is wholly different, and concerns the validity of the private complaint filed by Respondent No. 2, after an earlier information filed as NCR No. 158/2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . However, the overall concern expressed by this Court in Upkar Singh, about the misuse of successive complaints by the same party, where the second complaint is clearly propped up to materially improve on the earlier one, resonates with us. We regret to say that the same thing which this Court had categorically prohibited in Upkar Singh has happened in the present case. 6. The grave implications of allowing such misuse may be understood better in light of the following exposition by this Court in Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI anr., (2013) 6 SCC 348: 37. This Court has consistently laid down the law on the issue interpreting the Code, that a second FIR in respect of an offence or different offences committed in the course of the same transaction is not only impermissible but it violates Article 21 of the Constitution. In T.T. Antony [(2001) 6 SCC 181 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1048] , this Court has categorically held that registration of second FIR (which is not a cross case) is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution (emphasis supplied) Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees that the right to life and liberty shall not be taken away except by due process of law. Perm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... information to the police, smacks of mala fide on the part of Respondent No. 2. 8. It is also crucial to note that, in the fresh complaint case instituted by him, Respondent No. 2 seems to have deliberately suppressed the material fact that a charge sheet was already filed in relation to the same incident, against him and his wife, pursuant to NCR No.160/2012 (Crime No. 283/2017) filed by Appellant No.1 s son. No reference to this charge sheet is found in the private complaint, or in the statements under Section 200, CrPC filed by Respondent No. 2 and his wife. In fact, both the private complaint and the statement filed on behalf of his wife, merely state that the police officials have informed them that investigation is ongoing pursuant to their NCR No.158/2012. The wife s statement additionally even states that no action has been taken so far by the police. It is the litigant s bounden duty to make a full and true disclosure of facts. It is a matter of trite law, and yet bears repetition, that suppression of material facts before a court amounts to abuse of the process of the court, and shall be dealt with a heavy hand (Ram Dhan v. State of Uttar Pradesh Anr., (2012) 5 SCC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year by litigants with an intent to use the courts of justice for their own mischievous ends. Curtailing such vexatious litigation is, thus, a crucial step towards a more effective justice system a step that cannot be taken without the active involvement of the lower judiciary, especially in criminal proceedings. 12. Immediately after the criminal justice system is set in motion, its course is almost entirely dependent on the judicial application of mind by the Magistrate. When a police complaint is 1 Roshni Sinha, Examining pendency of cases in the Judiciary , PRS INDIA (August 8, 2019). Filed on the commission of a cognizable offence under Section 154 CrPC, the Magistrate decides if the charge against the accused person is made out before the trial begins. Separate procedure is prescribed if the complaint under Section 200 CrPC is filed. The aforesaid provisions make it abundantly clear that the Magistrate carries the stream of criminal proceeding forward after it is set in motion by the informant/complainant. Consequently, and automatically, the Magistrate also carries the responsibility for ensuring this stream does not carry forward in cases where it should not. 13. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as accused from being called upon to face an obviously frivolous complaint. But there is also another object behind this provision and it is to find out what material there is to support the allegations made in the complaint. It is the bounden duty of the Magistrate while making an enquiry to elicit all facts not merely with a view to protect the interests of an absent accused person, but also with a view to bring to book a person or persons against whom grave allegations are made. Whether the complaint is frivolous or not has, at that stage, necessarily to be determined on the basis of the material placed before him by the complainant... (emphasis supplied) Thus, it is clear that, on receipt of a private complaint, the Magistrate must first, scrutinise it to examine if the allegations made in the private complaint, inter alia, smack of an instance of frivolous litigation; and second, examine and elicit the material that supports the case of the complainant. 15. It is said that every trial is a voyage of discovery in which the truth is the quest. In India, typically, the Judge is not actively involved in fact finding owing to the adversarial nature of our justice system. Ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , worrying that the other side may trick him into defeat, for no fault of his. He spends invaluable time briefing counsel and preparing them for his claim. Time which he should have spent at work, or with his family, is lost, for no fault of his... While the Court s ruling pertained to civil proceedings, these observations ring true for the criminal justice machinery as well. We note, with regret, that 7 years hence, and there has still been no reduction in such plight. A falsely accused person not only suffers monetary damages but is exposed to disrepute and stigma from society. While running from pillar to post to find a lawyer to represent his case and arranging finances to defend himself before the court of law, he loses a part of himself. 18. As aforesaid, the trial courts and the Magistrates have an important role in curbing this injustice. They are the first lines of defence for both the integrity of the criminal justice system, and the harassed and distraught litigant. We are of the considered opinion that the trial courts have the power to not merely decide on acquittal or conviction of the accused person after the trial, but also the duty to nip frivolous litiga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quash criminal proceedings instituted after great delay, or with vengeful or malafide motives. (Sirajul ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 9 SCC 201; State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SCC 604). Thus, it is the constitutional duty of this Court to quash criminal proceedings that were instituted by misleading the court and abusing its processes of law, only with a view to harass the hapless litigants. 23. In this Court s quest for complete justice, and to bring peace between the parties, who are fighting various litigations since 2006, we exercise our powers under Article 142 to quash all the litigations between the parties arising out of this incident. Our Conclusions: 24. The impugned judgment of the High Court dated 28.09.2020 in Miscellaneous Petition No. 2561 of 2020 is set aside. 25. The proceedings in Complaint Case No.2943/2018, including the order of summons against the Appellants dated 4.04.2019 be quashed. 26. Further, proceedings pursuant to NCR No. 158/2012 dated 5.08.2012 filed by Respondent No. 2 also be quashed, in order to foreclose further frivolous litigation. 27. Any other criminal cases between the parties initiated by them in relatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
