Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against ISKCON Leaders in Bus Theft Case: Chanchalapati Das vs. State of West Bengal (2023) INSC 496 (18 May 2023)

Date of the Judgment: 18 May 2023
Citation: (2023) INSC 496
Judges: Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M. Trivedi
Can a criminal case be pursued when there’s an unexplained eight-year delay in filing a complaint? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving allegations of theft, forgery, and criminal breach of trust against leaders of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON). The Court quashed the criminal proceedings, citing abuse of the legal process. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M. Trivedi, with Justice Bela M. Trivedi authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case revolves around a complaint filed by ISKCON, Kolkata, alleging the theft of a bus. The complainant, ISKCON Kolkata, claimed that a 42-seater Ashok Leyland bus, registered in Kolkata, went missing from their premises. They alleged that the bus was illegally taken to Bengaluru and was in the custody of Madhu Pandit Das, the President of ISKCON, Bengaluru, and Chanchalpati Das, the Vice President of ISKCON, Bengaluru.

The initial complaint was made on 30th September 2006, to the Ballygunge Police Station, Kolkata, alleging that the bus had been taken to Bengaluru in 2001. The complainant further alleged that Adridharan Das, the then President of ISKCON Kolkata, had conspired with Madhu Pandit Das and others to commit theft and criminal breach of trust. It was also alleged that the original registration certificate of the bus was still with ISKCON Kolkata.

When no action was taken by the police, a private complaint was filed in 2009 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, against Madhu Pandit Das, Chanchalpati Das, Mahajan Das, and Adridharan Das, seeking investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). This led to the registration of FIR No. 33 at Ballygunge Police Station on 20th February 2009, for offences under Sections 379, 411, 406, 408, 120-B, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

The investigating officer filed a charge sheet against the accused for offences under Sections 468, 471, 406 and 120-B of IPC on 23rd October 2010. The accused then filed petitions before the High Court of Kolkata seeking quashing of the proceedings. The High Court dismissed these petitions, leading to the appeals before the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, took cognizance of the complaint and directed the police to investigate. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the appellants for offences under Sections 468, 471, 406, and 120-B of the IPC. The appellants then filed criminal revision petitions before the High Court of Kolkata seeking to quash the proceedings. The High Court dismissed these petitions, upholding the lower court’s decision. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case involves the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 468, IPC: “Forgery for purpose of cheating.—Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 471, IPC: “Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record.—Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or electronic record which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document or electronic record, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document or electronic record.”
• Section 406, IPC: “Punishment for criminal breach of trust.—Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”
• Section 120-B, IPC: “Punishment of criminal conspiracy.—(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence. (2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.”

The case also refers to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), which deals with the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. allows a Magistrate to order an investigation by the police.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The prosecution was initiated to harass the appellants due to personal disputes, not because of a genuine case of theft.
• The allegations in the complaint are absurd and improbable, and there is no reasonable possibility of the appellants being convicted.
• The bus was transferred and registered in Bengaluru in 2002, with proper documentation, and is now in a dump yard in Vrindavan.
• The FIR was filed in 2009 for an alleged theft that occurred in 2001, which is an abuse of process.
• The Investigating Officer failed to collect any evidence of forgery or fabrication of documents.
• ISKCON Bengaluru is willing to purchase a new bus for ISKCON Kolkata to resolve the matter.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The appellants have been charged with offences under Sections 468, 471, 406, and 120-B of the IPC, and there is a prima facie case against them.
• The documents produced by the appellants regarding the transfer of the bus were not part of the charge sheet and cannot be considered.
• The gravity of the offences of forgery, cheating, and breach of trust should not be minimized, even if the case involves only one bus.
• The offer to provide a new bus is not acceptable, as the offences are not compoundable under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue before the court was whether the criminal proceedings against the appellants should be quashed, considering the delay in filing the complaint, the lack of evidence, and the alleged mala fide intention behind the prosecution.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors. [1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335] – Supreme Court of India: This case laid down guidelines for the exercise of powers of quashing under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
• G. Sagar Suri and Anr. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. [(2000) 2 SCC 636] – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited by the appellants in support of their submissions for quashing the proceedings.
• Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and Ors. Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and Ors. [(1988) 1 SCC 692] – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited by the appellants in support of their submissions for quashing the proceedings.
• Subal Ghorai and Ors. vs. State of West Bengal [2013 (4) SCC 607] – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited by the appellants in support of their submissions for quashing the proceedings.
• Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Maninder Singh [(2016) 1 SCC 389] – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited by the respondents in support of their submissions that the criminal proceedings against the appellants may not be quashed.
• State of Gujarat Vs. Gajanand M. Dalwadi (Dead) by LRS [(2008) 1 SCC 716] – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited by the respondents in support of their submissions that the criminal proceedings against the appellants may not be quashed.
• Jasbir Singh vs. Tara Singh and Ors. [(2016) 16 SCC 441] – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited by the respondents in support of their submissions that the criminal proceedings against the appellants may not be quashed.
• Jagdish Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. [(2004) 4 SCC 432] – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited by the respondents in support of their submissions that the criminal proceedings against the appellants may not be quashed.
• Kaptan Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. [(2021) 9 SCC 35] – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited by the respondents in support of their submissions that the criminal proceedings against the appellants may not be quashed.
• Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Arvind Khanna [(2019) 10 SCC 686] – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited by the respondents in support of their submissions that the criminal proceedings against the appellants may not be quashed.
• State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Ors. [(1977) 2 SCC 699] – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to highlight that criminal proceedings could be quashed 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.
• State of A.P. Vs. Golconda Linga Swamy & Another [2004 (6) SCC 522] – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to highlight 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.
• Hasmukhlal D. Vora & Anr. vs. State of Tamil Nadu [2022 SCC Online SC 1732] – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to highlight that unexplained inordinate delay must be taken into consideration as a very crucial factor and ground for quashing a criminal complaint.
• Dalip Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others [(2010) 2 SCC 114] – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to highlight the misuse and abuse of the process of law by filing false and frivolous proceedings in the Courts.
• Subrata Roy Sahara vs. Union of India and Others [(2014) 8 SCC 470] – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to highlight the affliction of the Indian judicial system with frivolous litigation.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors. [1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335]: The Court followed the guidelines laid down in this case for quashing criminal proceedings.
• The other authorities cited by the appellants were used to support the contention that the proceedings should be quashed due to lack of evidence and abuse of process.
• The authorities cited by the respondents were not found to be applicable to the facts of the case, as the Court concluded that there was no prima facie case and that the proceedings were an abuse of process.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Inordinate Delay: The unexplained delay of eight years in filing the complaint was a significant factor. The Court found it unbelievable that ISKCON Kolkata would remain silent for so long if the bus was indeed precious to them.
• Lack of Evidence: The Court noted the absence of any concrete evidence to support the allegations of theft, forgery, and criminal breach of trust. The investigating officer failed to collect any expert opinion or scientific evidence.
• Abuse of Process: The Court concluded that the criminal proceedings were initiated to settle personal scores and were a clear abuse of the legal process.
• Frivolous Litigation: The Court expressed concern over the increasing trend of frivolous litigation and the need to deter such practices.

The Court’s reasoning was heavily influenced by the lack of factual evidence and the legal principle that criminal proceedings should not be used to settle personal scores. The Court emphasized the need to prevent abuse of the legal process and to ensure that only genuine cases are brought before the courts.

The Supreme Court considered the following points in its reasoning:

• The Court noted that the complaint was filed after an inordinate delay of eight years, which was deemed to be a significant factor.
• The Court found that there was no material or document produced by the complainant to substantiate the allegations.
• The Court observed that the Investigating Officer had failed to collect any cogent or substantive evidence against the appellants.
• The Court emphasized that the allegations made against the appellants were so absurd and improbable that no prudent person could conclude that there was sufficient ground for proceeding against them.
• The Court held that allowing the prosecution to continue would be a gross wastage of the court’s precious time.

The Court quoted from the judgment:

“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.”

“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 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.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench, with Justice Bela M. Trivedi authoring the opinion.

The Supreme Court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles in this case. The Court primarily relied on established legal principles regarding the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and the need to prevent abuse of the legal process.

Key Takeaways

• Inordinate delay in filing a complaint can be a significant factor in quashing criminal proceedings.
• Criminal proceedings should not be used to settle personal scores or harass individuals.
• Courts have the power to quash proceedings when there is a clear abuse of the legal process.
• Investigating officers must collect cogent and substantive evidence before filing a charge sheet.
• Frivolous litigation should be discouraged, and those who engage in it may be subject to costs.

This judgment reinforces the principle that criminal proceedings should be based on credible evidence and should not be initiated for malicious purposes. It also serves as a reminder that courts have the inherent power to prevent abuse of the legal process and to ensure that justice is not delayed or denied.