CHANCHALPATI DAS versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.
[2023] 6 S.C.R. 655, Supreme Court of India, 2023
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
655
   [2023] 6 S.C.R. 655
655
CHANCHALPATI DAS
v.
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1592 of 2023)
MAY 18, 2023
[AJAY RASTOGI AND BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – FIR and charge-sheet –
Quashing of – FIR was registered against appellant-accused u/ss.
468, 471, 406 and 120-B of IPC – Appellant-accused claim
themselves to be spiritual leaders and are related to a religious/
spiritual society – It was alleged that appellant-accused had
committed theft as well as criminal breach of trust in respect of a
bus – Appellant-accused sought quashing of the criminal
proceedings – High Court dismissed the criminal revisions – On
appeal, held: As per the case of the complainant, the alleged incident
of bus theft had taken place in the year 2001, and it was only in
2009 that the substantial complaint was made in the Court of CJM
– No concrete action was taken with regard to the alleged theft of
bus for a long period of eight years, till filing of complaint in the
year 2009 – There is no substantial material or document produced
by the complainant to substantiate the allegations against the
appellants – Even after investigation, there was no evidence collected
by the investigating officer to prima facie satisfy ingredients of
alleged offences – Allegations made in the complaint and the charge-
sheet taken at their face value none of the ingredients of the offences
are made out – No expert opinion obtained or scientific evidence
collected on documents allegedly forged to show as to by whom,
when and how the theft of vehicle and forgery of documents were
committed – Respondent-complainant has misused and abused the
process of law to settle personal scores with the appellants – In the
facts and circumstances, criminal proceedings against the appellants
quashed.
Administration of Justice – Abuse of process of any Court –
discussed.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
656
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 6 S.C.R.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. It is again pertinent to note that, even as per the
case of the complainant, the alleged incident of bus theft had taken
place in the year 2001, and it was only in 2009 that the substantial
complaint was made in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate. It
is just not believable that the concerned Police Station, Kolkata
would not have taken any action on the report made in 2002 on
behalf of the powerful body like the religious/spiritual Society in
Kolkata, or on the letter dated 30.09.2006 written by the Branch
Manager of the Society, Kolkata. The respondent no. 2-
complainant also did not take any concrete action for getting the
said complaint registered with regard to the alleged theft of bus
for a long period of eight years, till the complaint in the Court
was filed in the year 2009. In the opinion of the Court such an
inordinate delay of eight years in filing the complaint in the court
itself would be a sufficient ground to quash the proceedings. If
the luxury bus owned by the religious society, Kolkata Branch in
1998 was so precious to them, they would not have sat silent for
such a long time of eight years. In opinion of this Court, the
criminal machinery set into motion by filing the complaint for the
alleged incident which had taken place eight years ago, that act
itself was nothing but a sheer misuse and abuse of the process of
the court. [Para 11][663-D-G]
2. That
apart, from the bare perusal of the complaint filed
before the Court, on the basis of which the FIR was registered at
the Police Station on 20th February, 2009, it is discernible that
except bald allegations made in the complaint with regard to the
theft of bus in question there was no material or document
produced by the complainant to substantiate the allegations
against the appellants. Even after the investigation of the said
complaint, there was no evidence collected by the investigating
officer to prima facie satisfy the ingredients constituting the
alleged offences under Sections 468, 471, 406 and 120B of IPC.
Even if the allegations made in the complaint as well as in the
Chargesheet are taken at their face value none of the ingredients
constituting the alleged offences are culled out. The Senior
Counsel for the appellants had strenuously urged relying upon
the documents pertaining to the transfer of ownership and
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
657
registration of the said bus, that the said documents were executed
by the then authorized persons of the religious society in Kolkata,
in opinion of this Court, the said documents could not be
considered in these proceedings, the same being not the part of
the charge-sheet papers. In any case, there is nothing to suggest
from the other documents on record of the instant appeals that
the investigating officer had even bothered to collect any cogent
or substantive evidence against the appellants to prosecute them
for the alleged offences. There was no expert opinion obtained
or scientific evidence collected on the documents allegedly forged
to show as to by whom, when and how the theft of vehicle and
forgery of documents were committed. Under the circumstances,
allowing such prosecution to continue would not only be an empty
formality but would be gross wastage of court’s precious time.
[Para 12][663-G-H; 664-A-E]
3. In the light of afore-stated legal position, if the facts of
the case are appreciated, there remains no shadow of doubt that
the complaint filed by the respondent-complainant after an
inordinate unexplained delay of eight years was nothing but sheer
misuse and abuse of the process of law to settle the personal
scores with the appellants, and that continuation of such malicious
prosecution would also be further abuse and misuse of process
of law, more particularly when neither the allegations made in
the complaint nor in the chargesheet,
disclose any prima facie
case against the appellants. The allegations made against the
appellants are so absurd and improbable that no prudent person
can ever reach to a conclusion that there is a sufficient ground
for proceeding against the appellants-accused. [Para 17][666-F-
G]
4. In view of this judgment, the other set of petitions filed
against the order of the High Court wherein the High Court
directed Judicial Magistrate to fix charge and conclude trial taking
recourse to s.309 Cr.P.C. do not survive and stand disposed of
accordingly. [Paras 1 and 2][668-D]
Dalip Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
(2010) 2 SCC 114 : [2009] 16 SCR 111; Subrata Roy
Sahara vs. Union of India and Others (2014) 8 SCC
470 : [2014] 12 SCR 573 – relied on.
CHANCHALPATI DAS v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL &
ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
658
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 6 S.C.R.
Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Maninder Singh
(2016) 1 SCC 389 : [2015] 10 SCR 277; State of
Gujarat Vs. Gajanand M. Dalwadi (Dead) by LRS.
(2008) 1 SCC 716 : [2007] 13 SCR 913; Jasbir Singh
vs. Tara Singh and Ors. (2016) 16 SCC 441 : [2015]
10 SCR 61; Jagdish Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
(2004) 4 SCC 432 : [2004] 2 SCR 846; Kaptan Singh
Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2021) 9 SCC 35;
Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Arvind Khanna
(2019) 10 SCC 686 : [2019] 13 SCR 470; State of
Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Ors. (1977) 2 SCC
699 : [1977] 3 SCR 113; State of A.P. Vs.  Golconda
Linga Swamy & Another (2004) 6 SCC 522 : [2004] 3
Supp. SCR 147; Hasmukhlal D. Vora & Anr. vs. State
of Tamil Nadu 2022 SCC Online SC 1732 – referred
to.
Case Law Reference
[2015] 10 SCR 277
referred to
Para 9
[2007] 13 SCR 913
referred to
Para 9
[2015] 10 SCR 61
referred to
Para 9
[2004] 2 SCR 846
referred to
Para 9
[2019] 13 SCR 470
referred to
Para 9
[1977] 3 SCR 113
referred to
Para 13
[2004] 3 Supp. SCR 147
referred to
Para 15
[2009] 16 SCR 111
relied on
Para 18
[2014] 12 SCR 573
relied on
Para 19
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No.1592 of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.02.2023 of the High Court
at Calcutta in CRR No.4062 of 2022.
With
Criminal Appeal No.1593 Of 2023 And Slp (Crl.) Nos.4539 And
4603 of 2023.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
659
Shyam Divan, Jaideep Gupta, Krishnan Venugopal, Soumya
Chakraborty, Sr. Advs., Kartik Seth, Mrs. Shriya Gilhotra, Tarun Mehra,
Ms. Aakriti Vikas for M/s. Chambers of Kartik Seth, Prashant Bhushan,
Kuriakose Varghese, V Shyamohan, Ms. Aishwarya Hariharan, Martin
George, Ms. B. Vijayalakshmi Menon, Sanjeev Kaushik, Ms. Mantika
Haryani, Shreyas Awasthi, Somipam Mc, Ms. Muskan Surana, Ms. Astha
Sharma, Ms. Sradhaxna Mudhrika, Martin G George for M/s. Kmnp
Law, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The two Judgments of the Court were delivered by
BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.
Leave granted.
2. Both the appeals arise out of the common judgment and order
dated 22.03.2017 passed by the High Court at Kolkata in CRR No. 1490
of 2013 and CRR. No. 3307 of 2013 whereby the High Court has
dismissed both the Criminal Revision Applications seeking quashing of
the charge-sheet filed against the appellants-accused, in respect of the
FIR no. 33 of 2009 registered at Ballygunge Police Station, for the
offences under Sections 468, 471, 406 and 120-B of IPC. As transpiring
from the record, the appellant Madhu Pandit Das (accused no.1) is the
President of ISKCON, Bengaluru since 1984 and the appellant
Chanchalpati Das (accused no. 2) is the Vice President of ISKCON,
Bengaluru since 1985. Both of them claim to be the global spiritual leaders
and humanitarians. According to the appellants, the International Society
for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON), Bengaluru, is a society registered
in 1978
under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960.
3. As per the case of the respondent-complainant on 30.09.2006,
a letter in the form of complaint was addressed to the officer in charge,
Ballygunge Police Station, Kolkata, by the General Manager, ISKCON,
Kolkata, in which it was alleged inter alia that the International Society
for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON), Mumbai is a Society registered
since 1971 under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and Bombay Public
Trust Act, 1950, having its registered office at Hare Krishna Land, Juhu,
Mumbai-49. The said Society has many branches/offices all over India
including one located at 3C, Albert Road, Kolkata- 700019. The Governing
Council of the said Society known as “Bureau” is the highest
administrative body. The said Bureau at the relevant time had entrusted
Sri Adridharan Das, who was the President of the said Kolkata Branch,
CHANCHALPATI DAS v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL &
ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
660
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 6 S.C.R.
with the management of the assets and properties situated at Kolkata
Branch, which included a 42-seat deluxe bus of Ashok Leyland make,
model Viking Alpsv 4/37-222 WB passenger bus, bearing registration
no. WB25A-0454, engine No. WSH 104189, chassis No. WSH042296.
The said bus used to be parked at the premises of Kolkata Branch.
4. It was further alleged that when the new management took
over the management of the said branch at Kolkata, the said bus was
not found in the premises of the said branch. Therefore, Sri Jagdartiha
Das, one of the Managers wrote a letter dated 23rd November, 2001 to
the Regional Transport Officer, Barasat, Kolkata not to issue any duplicate
registration certificate, tax card etc. in respect of the said bus. It was
further stated in the said letter dated 30th September, 2006 that a report
was also made to the police station on 22.05.2002, however subsequently
they came to know that the said bus was in the illegal custody of Sri
Madhu Pandit Das, residing at Hare Krishna HilIs, Rajaji Nagar,
Bengaluru, Karnataka. It was also alleged that Mr. Adridharan Das had
entered into a criminal conspiracy with Mr. Madhu Pandit Das and others,
and that Mr. Adridharan Das had committed theft as well as criminal
breach of trust in respect of the said vehicle, which was taken to
Bengaluru. It was also alleged that the original registration certificate of
the said vehicle was lying at the Kolkata Branch, and
that neither Mr.
Adridharan Das nor Mr. Madhu Pandit Das or any other person had any
authority to get the said vehicle transferred to Bengaluru or to change
the name of the registered owner of the said vehicle.
5. It is further case of the respondent-complainant that since the
Ballygunge Police Station had not taken notice of the said letter dated
30.09.2006, the complainant Radha Raman Das, the Branch Manager
of ISKCON, Kolkata had filed a private complaint in the year 2009 in
the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, against the accused Madhu
Pandit Das, Chanchalpati Das, Mahajan Das and Adridharan Das seeking
investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The said case was registered
as criminal case no. 747 of 2009 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Alipore.
6. It appears that the said Court Petition under Section 156(3) of
Cr.P.C was registered as FIR being no. 33 at the Ballygunge Police
Station on 20.02.2009 for the offences under Section 379/ 411/ 406/ 408/
120-B/ 468/ 471 IPC. The investigating officer on the completion of
investigation submitted the charge-sheet being no. 58 in the court of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
661
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore against the accused Madhu Pandit
Das, Chanchalpati Das, Mahajan Das and Adridharan Das, for the
offences under Section 468, 471, 406 and 120-B IPC on 23.10.2010.
7. The appellant-accused Chanchalpati Das filed a petition being
CRR No. 1490 of 2013 and the appellant-accused Madhu Pandit Das
filed a petition being CRR No. 3307/2013 before the High Court of
Kolkata seeking quashing of proceedings of criminal case no. 747 of
2009 pending before the CJM, Alipore. The High Court vide the common
impugned judgement and order dismissed both the Criminal Revisions.
8. The learned Senior Advocate Mr. Shyam Divan for the
appellants vehemently submitted that the prosecution initiated against
the appellants by the respondent-complainant was only an attempt to
harass the appellants under the guise of the bus theft case to settle the
personal scores with appellants, as the appellants were able to create
around 30 ISKCON/Hare Krishna Movement associated Centres under
the aegis of ISKCON Bengaluru, who follow the teachings of Srila
Prabhupada, by keeping him as the sole Diksha Acharya. He further
submitted that the allegations in the complaint/FIR are not only absurd
and improbable, but there is no reasonable possibility of the appellants
being convicted for the alleged offences after the trial. Relying upon the
documents with regard to the transfer of registration of the bus in question,
he submitted that the said bus was registered at
Kolkata on 20.11.1998,
however thereafter was registered at Bengaluru on 22.05.2002 after
the execution of necessary documents of transfer and at present the bus
is lying in the dump yard at Vrindavan, Uttar Pradesh. According to him,
filing of an FIR in 2009 for the alleged theft of bus taken place in 2002,
was sheer abuse of process of law. Even the Investigating Officer has
failed to collect and produce any documents or evidence along with the
charge-sheet with regard to the alleged forgery and fabrication of
documents. Mr. Diwan has placed reliance on the decisions in State of
Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors.1, in G. Sagar Suri and
Anr. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.2, in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia
and Ors. Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and Ors.3, in Subal
Ghorai and Ors. vs. State of West Bengal4 to buttress his submissions.
Lastly, he submitted that to put a quietus in the matter, the ISKCON
1 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335
2 (2000) 2 SCC 636
3 (1988) 1 SCC 692
4 2013 (4) SCC 607
CHANCHALPATI DAS v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL &
ANR. [BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
662
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 6 S.C.R.
Bengaluru is ready and willing to purchase a latest model brand new
Ashok Leyland bus in the name of ISKCON Kolkata directly.
9. Per contra, learned Senior Advocate Mr. K. Venugopal
appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2-complainant submitted that both
the appellants have been charged by the respondent no. 1 State for the
offence under Sections 468, 471, 406 and 120-B IPC as per the final
report submitted by the investigating officer and there being a prima
facie case made out against the appellants, which even the High Court
had recorded in the impugned order, this Court may not interfere with
the same. According to him, the documents of registration produced by
the appellants, claiming to have been received under the RTI from the
concerned Regional Transport Authority, Bengaluru, have been produced
for the first time before this Court and the same could not be taken into
consideration. He further submitted that the underlying complaint
pertained to only one luxury bus in comparison to the huge business
empire including real estate built by the appellant-accused, cannot detract
from, or minimise the gravity of the offences of forgery, cheating and
breach of trust allegedly committed by the appellants. He also submitted
that the proposal of appellants-accused to give a new bus to ISKCON
Kolkata cannot be accepted, as the offences alleged against the appellants
are not compoundable under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. Mr.
Venugopal has
placed reliance on the decisions in Central Bureau of Investigation
Vs. Maninder Singh5;State of Gujarat Vs. Gajanand M. Dalwadi
(Dead) by LRS.6; Jasbir Singh vs. Tara Singh and Ors.7; Jagdish
Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.8; Kaptan Singh Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and Ors.9; Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Arvind
Khanna10 in support of his submissions that the criminal proceedings
against the appellants may not be quashed.
10. Having gone through the pleadings of the parties and the
documents on record and having anxiously considered the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the parties, it emerges that according to
the complainant-respondent, a letter in the form of complaint was written
by the Branch Manager of the ISKCON Kolkata, on 30.09.2006
5 (2016) 1 SCC 389
6 (2008) 1 SCC 716
7 (2016) 16 SCC 441
8 (2004) 4 SCC 432
9 (2021) 9 SCC 35
10 (2019) 10 SCC 686
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
663
addressed to the officer in-charge, Ballygunge Police Station, Kolkata,
in respect of an alleged theft of a bus having taken place in 2001, however,
no action was taken by the said police station. Though, the complainant
had reported the matter to the concerned Police Station earlier on 22nd
May, 2002, however, no action was taken in that regard. It is pertinent to
note that with regard to the said allegations against the concerned police
station, there is nothing on record to suggest that either the said report
dated 22.05.2002 or the letter dated 30.09.2006 was ever received by
the concerned police station or any follow up action was taken by the
respondent-complainant in that regard. According to the respondent-
complainant, since no action was taken on the letter dated 30th September,
2006 written to the concerned Police Station, the complaint was lodged
in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore on 10th February, 2009,
which was registered as C.R. Case No. 747 of 2009, seeking investigation
under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.
11. It is again pertinent to note that, even as per the case of the
complainant, the alleged incident of bus theft had taken place in the year
2001, and it was only in 2009 that the substantial complaint was made in
the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore. It is just not believable
that the concerned Ballygunge Police Station, Kolkata would not have
taken any action on the report made in 2002 on behalf of the
powerful
body like the ISKCON Kolkata, or on the letter dated 30.09.2006 written
by the Branch Manager of the ISKCON, Kolkata. The respondent no.
2-complainant also did not take any concrete action for getting the said
complaint registered with regard to the alleged theft of bus for a long
period of eight years, till the complaint in the Court was filed in the year
2009. In the opinion of the Court such an inordinate delay of eight years
in filing the complaint in the court itself would be a sufficient ground to
quash the proceedings. If the luxury bus owned by the ISKCON, Kolkata
Branch in 1998 was so precious to them, they would not have sat silent
for such a long time of eight years. In our opinion, the criminal machinery
set into motion by filing the complaint for the alleged incident which had
taken place eight years ago, that act itself was nothing but a sheer misuse
and abuse of the process of the court.
12. That apart, from the bare perusal of the complaint filed before
the Court, on the basis of which the FIR was registered at the Ballygunge
Police Station on 20th February, 2009, it is discernible that except bald
allegations made in the complaint with regard to the theft of bus in question
CHANCHALPATI DAS v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL &
ANR. [BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
664
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 6 S.C.R.
there was no material or document produced by the complainant to
substantiate the allegations against the appellants. Even after the
investigation of the said complaint, there was no evidence collected by
the investigating officer to prima facie satisfy the ingredients constituting
the alleged offences under Sections 468, 471, 406 and 120B of IPC.
Even if the allegations made in the complaint as well as in the Chargesheet
are taken at their face value none of the ingredients constituting the
alleged offences are culled out. The learned Senior Counsel Mr. Shyam
Divan for the appellants had strenuously urged relying upon the documents
pertaining to the transfer of ownership and registration of the said bus,
that the said documents were executed by the then authorized persons
of the ISKCON Kolkata, in our opinion, the said documents could not be
considered in these proceedings, the same being not the part of the
charge-sheet papers. In any case, there is nothing to suggest from the
other documents on record of the instant appeals that the investigating
officer had even bothered to collect any cogent or substantive evidence
against the appellants to prosecute them for the alleged offences. There
was no expert opinion obtained or scientific evidence collected on the
documents allegedly forged to show as to by whom, when and how the
theft of vehicle and forgery of documents were committed. Under the
circumstances, allowing
such prosecution to continue would not only be
an empty formality but would be gross wastage of court’s precious time.
13. It cannot be gainsaid that the High Courts have power to
quash the proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
to prevent the abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the
ends of justice. Though the powers under Section 482 should be sparingly
exercised and with great caution, the said powers ought to be exercised
if a clear case of abuse of process of law is made out by the accused. In
the State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Ors.11 had held that
the criminal proceedings could be quashed by the High Court under
Section 482 if the court is of the opinion that allowing the proceedings to
continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends
of justice require that the proceedings are to be quashed.
14. This Court, way back in 1992 in the landmark decision in case
of State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors (Supra), after
considering relevant provisions more particularly Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C. and the principles of law enunciated by this Court relating to the
11 (1977) 2 SCC 699
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
665
exercise of extra-ordinary powers under Article 226, had laid down certain
guidelines for the exercise of powers of quashing, which have been
followed in umpteen number of cases. The relevant part thereof reads
as under:
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant
provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles
of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to
the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the
inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have
extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories
of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be
exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible
to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently
channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give
an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power
should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or
the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence
or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other
materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable
offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section
156(1) of the Code
except under an order of a Magistrate within
the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or
complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do
not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case
against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable
offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no
investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so
absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent
CHANCHALPATI DAS v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL &
ANR. [BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
666
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 6 S.C.R.
person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the
provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a
criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance
of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in
the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for
the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) 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.”
15. In State ofA.P. Vs. Golconda Linga Swamy & Another12
this Court had observed that the Court would be justified to quash the
proceedings if it finds that initiation or continuance of such proceedings
would amount to abuse of the process of Court.
16. As regards inordinate delay in filing the complaint it has been
recently observed by this Court in Hasmukhlal D. Vora & Anr. vs.
State of Tamil Nadu13 that though inordinate delay in itself may not be
a ground for quashing of a criminal complaint, however unexplained
inordinate delay must be taken into consideration as a very crucial factor
and ground for quashing a criminal complaint.
17. In the light of afore-stated legal position, if the facts of the
case are
appreciated, there remains no shadow of doubt that the complaint
filed by the respondent-complainant after an inordinate unexplained delay
of eight years was nothing but sheer misuse and abuse of the process of
law to settle the personal scores with the appellants, and that continuation
of such malicious prosecution would also be further abuse and misuse of
process of law, more particularly when neither the allegations made in
the complaint nor in the chargesheet, disclose any prima facie case against
the appellants. The allegations made against the appellants are so absurd
and improbable that no prudent person can ever reach to a conclusion
that there is a sufficient ground for proceeding against the appellants-
accused.
12 2004 (6) SCC 522
13 2022 SCC Online SC 1732
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
667
18. Before parting, a few observations made by this Court with
regard to the misuse and abuse of the process of law by filing false and
frivolous proceedings in the Courts need to be reproduced. In the Court.
In Dalip Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others14 it was observed
that:
“1. For many centuries Indian society cherished two basic values
of life i.e. “satya” (truth) and “ahimsa” (non-violence). Mahavir,
Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain
these values in their daily life. Truth constituted an integral part of
the justice-delivery system which was in vogue in the pre-
Independence era and the people used to feel proud to tell truth in
the courts irrespective of the consequences. However, post-
Independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system.
The materialism has overshadowed the old ethos and the quest
for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in
litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood,
misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court
proceedings.”
19. In Subrata Roy Sahara vs. Union of India and Others15 it
was observed as under:
“191. The Indian judicial system is grossly afflicted with frivolous
litigation. Ways and means need to be evolved to deter litigants
from their compulsive obsession towards senseless and ill-
considered claims.”
20. We would like to add that just as bad coins drive out good
coins from circulation, bad cases drive out good cases from
being heard
on time. Because of the proliferation of frivolous cases in the courts, the
real and genuine cases have to take a backseat and are not being heard
for years together. The party who initiates and continues a frivolous,
irresponsible and senseless litigation or who abuses the process of the
court must be saddled with exemplary cost, so that others may deter to
follow such course. The matter should be viewed more seriously when
people who claim themselves and project themselves to be the global
spiritual leaders, engage themselves into such kind of frivolous litigations
and use the court proceedings as a platform to settle their personal scores
or to nurture their personal ego.
14 (2010) 2 SCC 114
15 (2014) 8 SCC 470
CHANCHALPATI DAS v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL &
ANR. [BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
668
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 6 S.C.R.
21. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present
case and for the reasons stated hereinabove, we deem it appropriate to
quash the criminal proceedings pending against the appellants in the Court
of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, arising out of the FIR No. 33 of
2009 registered at Ballygunge Police Station, and quash the same.
22. The appeals stand allowed, with cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- which
shall be deposited by the respondent-complainant in the office of the
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association.
BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.
1. Both the petitions arise out of the order dated 17.02.2023 passed
by the High Court at Kolkata in CRR 4062 of 2022 whereby the High
Court has directed the concerned Judicial Magistrate at Alipore to
specifically fix the date for consideration of the charge within one month
from the date of communication of order and further to conclude the
trial within ten months taking recourse to the provision contained in Section
309 of Cr.P.C.
2. In view of the judgment passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal
No. 1592 of 2023 (@ SLP (CRL.) NO. 6688 OF 2017) & Criminal
Appeal No. 1593  of 2023 (@SLP (CRL.) NO. 6689 OF 2017), the
present petitions do not survive and stand disposed of accordingly.
Ankit Gyan
Appeals allowed and petitions disposed of.