top of page

Criminal proceedings shall be quashed, if the complaint was made with mala fide and maliciously inst

Ahmad Ali Kuraishi and another vs The State of U.P. and others, Criminal Appeal No. 138 of 2020 arising out of SLP (crl) No. 3974 of 2020 – JANUARY 30, 2020

The Bench comprising of the Justice. Ashok Bhushan and M.R. Shah allowed the appeal.

The complaint has been made against the appellants under sections 323, 353, 504 and 506 IPC and Section 7/8 POSCO Act. The allegations made in the complaint was that indecent gestures have been conducted towards the two daughters of the complainant and were also said to be beaten. The appellant accused and their brothers with common intention forcibly entered the house of the complainant and hurld filthy abuses.

The appeal has been filed before  the court challenging the order passed by the High Court which rejects the application been filed by the appellants accused under Section 482 Crpc in order to quash the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1 of 2017.

The contention on the side of the appellant is that the report submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police clearly indicates that no such incident took place as alleged, after the enquiry was made. It is also submitted that Civil suit was pending before the court regarding the property dispute between the father of the appellants and the complainant. So the said complaint was made based on the personal grudges and is manifestly attended with mala fide and has been maliciously instituted with ulterior motives.

The contention on the side of complainant is that the High court in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 482 Crpc shall not examine the question as to whether the allegations made in the complaint against the appellant is true or false nor High court will assess the evidence at this stage.

On hearing both the sides of the arguments, the court while considering the first issue held that,

The guidelines issued in State of Haryana v Bhajan lal, can be taken into consideration based on the facts of the case. It is clear that the present case is a fit case where the High Court ought to have exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Crpc to quash the criminal proceedings. But in this case, High court failed to exercise jurisdiction under section 482 Crpc in quashing the criminal proceedings initiated by the complaint.

The Court stated that present is a case where criminal proceedings have been initiated by complainant with an ulterior motive due to private and personal grudge. The High Court although noticed the judgment of this Court in State of Haryana and others versus Bhajan Lal and others(supra) in the impugned judgment but did not examine the facts of the case as to whether present is a case which falls in any of the category as enumerated in Bhajan Lal’s case.   The   present   case   clearly   falls   in category VII of Bhajan Lal’s case and the High Court failed to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in quashing the criminal proceeding initiated by the complaint.

The learned sessions Judge does not believed the second allegation which was said to be occurred as mentioned in the complaint. But it was submitted on the side of the complainant is that the first and second allegation mentioned in the complaint were occurred on the same day. Non believing on one allegation throws a shadow of doubt on the occurrence of first allegation. Also on taking the consideration of the pending civil suit regarding property dispute between the appellant and the complainant it is clear that the complaint was initiated with an ulterior motive due to private and personal grudge.

The Court held that in permitting Criminal proceedings against the appellant shall  be permitting a criminal proceeding which has been maliciously instituted with ulterior motives, permitting such criminal proceeding to go on is nothing but the abuse of the process of the Court which needs to be interfered by this Court.

Thus, the Bench accordingly allowed the appeal.

– Prithisha S



bottom of page