In Frivolous Proceedings, Court Owes Duty To Look Into Other Attending Circumstances Emerging From Record Of Case: SC In Dacoity Case
The Supreme Court in a dacoity case has observed that in frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into other attending circumstances emerging from the record of case.
The Court was deciding an appeal at the instance of the accused preferred against the Allahabad High Court’s order whereby it rejected the writ petition of the accused and declined to quash the FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 386, 365, 342, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The two-Judge Bench of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice J.B. Pardiwala held, “… it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines.”
The Bench said that once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings.
Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave appeared for the appellant while Additional Advocate General Garima Prasad appeared for the State.
In this case, in the year 2012 the complainant got the contract for construction work of a school building in the university owned by the appellant for Rs. 4.80 crores. All the agreements were made by the then Manager and the said construction work was completed by the complainant in 2015 after which a balance amount of Rs. 1.20 crores was left to be paid by the appellant. It was alleged that several construction articles worth Rs. 1.86 crore were also kept in the university.
In 2021, when the complainant went to meet the appellant to ask him to return the balance amount, the accused persons, refused to return the balance amount as well as the construction articles and further threatened to kill the him. It was further alleged that when the complainant along with his partner went to the university, they were taken by an unknown person to the appellant’s residence, where all the accused persons were present and when the complainant asked them to return the balance amount, they forcibly snatched his car key, mobile phone, a sum of Rs. 80,000/- (from their pocket) and their ID card. The High Court declined to quash the FIR against the appellant aggrieved by which the appellant approached the Apex Court.
The Supreme Court in view of the above facts noted, “We are of the view that even if the entire case of the prosecution is believed or accepted to be true, none of the ingredients to constitute the offence of dacoity punishable under Section 395 of the IPC is made out. … In the same manner, none of the ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 365, 342 and 506 resply of the IPC are disclosed on plain reading of the FIR. The FIR is nothing but abuse of the process of law.”
It said that the Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation.
“At this stage, we would like to observe something important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely”, also noted the Court.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellant.
Cause Title- Haji Iqbal @ Bala v. State of U.P. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2023 INSC 688)
