Supreme Court quashes criminal proceedings arising from family dispute: Ahmad Ali Quraishi & Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (30 January 2020)

Date of the Judgment: 30 January 2020
Citation: (2020) INSC 89
Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J. and M.R. Shah, J.
Can a criminal complaint be quashed if it appears to be a tool for settling personal scores rather than a genuine pursuit of justice? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case involving a family dispute. The court examined whether the High Court was correct in refusing to quash criminal proceedings initiated by a complainant against his relatives, given the history of civil disputes and other factors. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice M.R. Shah.

Case Background

The case involves a family dispute between the appellants (Ahmad Ali Quraishi and another) and the respondent No. 2 (Sajjad Quraishi). The parties are related and live in the same neighborhood. The father of the accused, Anwarul Haq, had previously filed a civil suit (O.S. No. 744/2015) against the complainant regarding the partition of properties, which was still pending. This ongoing property dispute led to several altercations between the parties.

On July 19, 2016, a quarrel occurred between the parties. The police intervened and initiated proceedings under Sections 151, 107, and 116 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) against both sides to maintain peace. Subsequently, on August 29, 2016, the complainant, Sajjad Quraishi, filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. against the appellants and their family members. The complainant alleged that on July 19, 2016, at around 6:00 PM, the accused made indecent gestures and physically assaulted his daughters when they went to fetch water from a public hand pump. It was also alleged that the accused later forcibly entered the complainant’s house and continued the assault.

The complainant further alleged that he had reported the incident, but no action was taken. He sent applications to the Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur, the Director General of Police, Lucknow, and the National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi. The application alleged offenses under Sections 323, 354, 504, 506, and 452 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POSCO) Act.

The Additional District/Sessions Judge (POSCO Act) rejected the complainant’s application on October 14, 2016, stating there were no sufficient grounds to register a case. The Sessions Judge also noted that police had already initiated proceedings under Sections 151, 107, and 116 of the Cr.P.C. regarding the incident. The complainant then filed a Criminal Revision in the High Court, which did not interfere with the rejection order but suggested that the complainant could file an appropriate application before the concerned court.

Following instructions from the National Human Rights Commission, the Superintendent of Police directed an inquiry into the complaint. The inquiry, conducted by the C.O. (City), Jaunpur, found that the allegations were not proved. Despite this, the complainant filed a complaint case (No. 1 of 2017) on October 4, 2017, repeating the same allegations. The Sessions Judge summoned the appellants under Sections 323, 353, 504, and 506 of the IPC and Sections 7/8 of the POSCO Act. The appellants then filed an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the High Court, seeking to quash the proceedings, which was dismissed on February 21, 2018, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Additional District/Sessions Judge (POSCO Act) initially rejected the complainant’s application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., finding no sufficient grounds to register a case. The High Court, in a criminal revision, upheld this rejection but suggested that the complainant could file a fresh application. Subsequently, the complainant filed a complaint case (No. 1 of 2017). The Sessions Judge, taking cognizance of the complaint, summoned the appellants. The appellants then approached the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings, which was dismissed. This led to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined the scope and ambit of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. This section allows the High Court to make orders to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The Court referred to its earlier judgment in State of Haryana and others versus Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 suppl. (1) SCC 335, which laid down seven categories of cases where such power can be exercised. These categories include situations where the allegations do not constitute an offense, are absurd, or are made with malicious intent.

The Court also discussed the principles laid down in State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy, (1977) 2 SCC 699, and State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa, (2002) 3 SCC 89, which emphasize that the High Court can quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice. The Court also referred to Vineet Kumar and others versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2017) 13 SCC 369, which reiterated that the inherent power of the High Court is to be used to advance justice and thwart attempts to abuse the court process.

The relevant legal provisions considered were:

• Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.): Inherent powers of High Court.
• Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.: Magistrate’s power to order investigation.
• Section 151, 107 and 116 of the Cr.P.C.: Actions for maintaining peace.
• Sections 323, 354, 504, 506, and 452 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Various offenses related to assault, outraging modesty, intentional insult, criminal intimidation, and house-trespass.
• Sections 7 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POSCO) Act: Offenses related to sexual assault on children.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants:

• The appellants argued that the complaint was a result of a property dispute between the father of the appellant and the complainant, with a civil suit (No. 744 of 2015) pending in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division).
• They contended that the complainant filed frivolous complaints to pressure them and their father to settle the property dispute.
• The appellants pointed out that the Sessions Judge had already rejected the complainant’s application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.
• They highlighted that an inquiry by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, following a complaint to the Human Rights Commission, found no evidence of the alleged incident.
• The appellants submitted that the complaint was an abuse of the process of the court, actuated to settle personal scores and put pressure on them.
• They further argued that police had already initiated proceedings under Sections 151, 107, and 115 of the Cr.P.C. for the same incident, asking both parties to maintain peace.
• The appellants claimed that the allegations were imaginary and completely false.

Arguments by the Complainant:

• The complainant supported the High Court’s order, arguing that it rightly refused to quash the proceedings.
• The complainant submitted that the High Court should not examine the truth or falsity of the allegations at this stage, nor assess the evidence.

Arguments by the State of Uttar Pradesh:

• The State of Uttar Pradesh filed a counter affidavit, bringing on record the application filed by the complainant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the inquiry report.

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellants innovatively used the sequence of events, the rejection of the initial application, and the inquiry report to argue that the complaint was a malicious attempt to settle a personal score rather than a genuine pursuit of justice.

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 High Court was justified in refusing to quash the criminal proceedings, given the facts and circumstances of the case, including the existing civil dispute, the rejection of the initial application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the inquiry report, and the initiation of proceedings under Sections 151, 107, and 116 of the Cr.P.C.

The sub-issue that the court dealt with was whether the case fell under the category of cases where the High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of the process of the court.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

• State of Haryana and others versus Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 suppl. (1) SCC 335: This case laid down the seven categories of cases where the High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings. (Supreme Court of India)
• Vineet Kumar and others versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2017) 13 SCC 369: This case reiterated the principles governing the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Supreme Court of India)
• State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy, (1977) 2 SCC 699: This case held that the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it is an abuse of the process of the court or if the ends of justice require it. (Supreme Court of India)
• State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa, (2002) 3 SCC 89: This case emphasized that the inherent power of the court exists for the advancement of justice and to prevent abuse of authority. (Supreme Court of India)
• Sunder Babu v. State of T.N., (2009) 14 SCC 244: This case demonstrated an instance where the Supreme Court quashed proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. based on the principles laid down in Bhajan Lal’s case. (Supreme Court of India)

The Court also considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.): This section deals with the inherent powers of the High Court to make orders to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice.
• Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.: This section empowers a Magistrate to order an investigation.
• Sections 151, 107 and 116 of the Cr.P.C.: These sections deal with the powers of the police to take measures for maintaining public peace and tranquility.
• Sections 323, 354, 504, 506, and 452 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): These sections define various criminal offenses, such as voluntarily causing hurt, assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace, criminal intimidation, and house-trespass.
• Sections 7 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POSCO) Act: These sections deal with offences of sexual assault on children.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 suppl. (1) SCC 335]*: The Court used the seven categories outlined in this case to determine if the current case warranted quashing of proceedings. Specifically, the Court found that the case fell under Category VII, indicating a malicious intent.
• Vineet Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2017) 13 SCC 369]*: The Court reiterated the principle that the inherent power of the High Court should be used to prevent abuse of the court process, as established in this case.
• State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy [(1977) 2 SCC 699]*: The Court relied on this case to support the view that the High Court can quash proceedings to prevent abuse of the process or to secure the ends of justice.
• State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa [(2002) 3 SCC 89]*: The Court used this case to reinforce the principle that the inherent power of the court exists to advance justice and to prevent the abuse of authority.
• Sunder Babu v. State of T.N. [(2009) 14 SCC 244]*: The Court referred to this case to show an instance where the Supreme Court quashed proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. based on the principles laid down in Bhajan Lal’s case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the fact that the criminal proceedings appeared to be a tool to settle a personal score arising from a property dispute. The Court noted several factors that indicated the malicious nature of the complaint: the ongoing civil suit between the parties, the initial rejection of the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the inquiry report that found no evidence to support the allegations, and the fact that the police had already initiated proceedings under Section 151, 107 and 116 of the Cr.P.C. to maintain peace. The Court emphasized that the judicial process should not be used as an instrument of oppression or needless harassment.

The Court’s reasoning was a blend of factual analysis and legal interpretation. The Court thoroughly examined the sequence of events, the various applications and proceedings, and the inquiry report. It then applied the principles laid down in previous judgments, especially Bhajan Lal’s case, to conclude that the criminal proceedings were an abuse of the process of the court. The Court was keen to ensure that the judicial process is not used to settle private scores.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the alternative argument that the High Court should not interfere with criminal proceedings at the initial stage. However, the Court rejected this argument, stating that in cases where the complaint is manifestly mala fide, the court has the power to examine the facts and quash the proceedings to prevent abuse of process. The Court emphasized that the judicial process should not be used as an instrument of oppression or needless harassment. The final decision was reached by applying the principles of Bhajan Lal’s case to the specific facts of the case.

The Court’s decision was unanimous. The Court held that the criminal proceedings were maliciously instituted with ulterior motives and allowing them to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“Inherent power given to the High Court under Section 482 CrPC is with the purpose and object of advancement of justice. In case solemn process of Court is sought to be abused by a person with some oblique motive, the Court has to thwart the attempt at the very threshold.”

“Judicial process is a solemn proceeding which cannot be allowed to be converted into an instrument of operation or harassment.”

“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.”

Key Takeaways

• Criminal proceedings can be quashed if they appear to be an abuse of the process of the court, especially when initiated with malicious intent and ulterior motives.
• The existence of a civil dispute between parties can be a significant factor in determining the genuineness of a criminal complaint.
• Courts have the power to examine the facts and circumstances of a case, even at the initial stage, to prevent the misuse of the judicial process.
• The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. are to be exercised to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the court process.
• Inquiry reports and previous rejections of applications can be considered to assess the credibility of a complaint.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not give any specific directions, but it quashed the criminal proceedings initiated by Complaint Case No. 1 of 2017.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that criminal proceedings initiated with malicious intent and ulterior motives, especially when arising from a private and personal grudge, should be quashed to prevent abuse of the process of the court. This case reinforces the principles laid down in Bhajan Lal’s case and other related judgments, ensuring that the judicial process is not used as a tool for harassment or vendetta. There is no change in the previous positions of law, but the judgment provides a clear application of the existing principles to a specific set of facts.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashing the criminal proceedings initiated by the complainant. The Court found that the proceedings were a result of a private and personal grudge, stemming from a property dispute, and were an abuse of the process of the court. This judgment underscores the importance of using the judicial process for genuine pursuit of justice and not as a tool for settling personal scores.