Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings in ISKCON Bus Theft Case: Chanchalpati Das vs. State of West Bengal (2023) INSC 554

Date of the Judgment: 18 May 2023
Citation: (2023) INSC 554
Judges: Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M. Trivedi
Can a criminal case be sustained when there is an unexplained delay of eight years in filing the complaint? The Supreme Court recently addressed this question in a case involving the alleged theft of a bus belonging to the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON). The court quashed the criminal proceedings, citing a significant delay in filing the complaint and a lack of evidence to support the charges. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M. Trivedi, with the opinion authored by Justice Bela M. Trivedi.

Case Background

The case revolves around a complaint filed by the General Manager of ISKCON, Kolkata, alleging the theft of a 42-seater bus. The bus, registered in Kolkata, was allegedly taken to Bengaluru without authorization. The complainant stated that the bus was under the management of Sri Adridharan Das, the President of the Kolkata branch. It was alleged that Sri Adridharan Das, in conspiracy with Mr. Madhu Pandit Das and others, committed theft and criminal breach of trust by taking the bus to Bengaluru. The original registration certificate was allegedly still at the Kolkata branch, and no one had the authority to transfer the bus to Bengaluru or change the registered owner.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

Initially, the Ballygunge Police Station did not take action on the complaint letter dated 30.09.2006. Consequently, the complainant filed a private complaint in 2009 in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, seeking investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). This led to the registration of FIR No. 33 at the Ballygunge Police Station on 20.02.2009. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused for offences under Sections 468, 471, 406, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The High Court of Kolkata dismissed the criminal revision applications filed by the accused seeking quashing of the charge-sheet.

Legal Framework

The case involves the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC):

• Section 468, Indian Penal Code (IPC): Forgery for purpose of cheating.
• Section 471, Indian Penal Code (IPC): Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record.
• Section 406, Indian Penal Code (IPC): Punishment for criminal breach of trust.
• Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code (IPC): Punishment of criminal conspiracy.
• Section 156(3), Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.): Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order such an investigation as mentioned in section 156(1).
• Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.): Saving of inherent power of High Court.
• Section 309, Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.): Power to postpone or adjourn proceedings.

Arguments

The appellants argued that the prosecution was an attempt to harass them due to personal disputes. They claimed the bus was legally transferred and is now in a dump yard in Vrindavan. They also contended that the FIR was filed after an unreasonable delay of eight years, and the investigating officer failed to produce any evidence of forgery or fabrication of documents. The appellants relied on the following cases:

• State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors.: To support the quashing of criminal proceedings.
• G. Sagar Suri and Anr. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.: To support the quashing of criminal proceedings.
• Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and Ors. Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and Ors: To support the quashing of criminal proceedings.
• Subal Ghorai and Ors. vs. State of West Bengal: To support the quashing of criminal proceedings.

The respondent-complainant argued that there was a prima facie case against the appellants, and the High Court had rightly refused to quash the proceedings. They stated that the documents produced by the appellants were not part of the charge-sheet and should not be considered. They also contended that the offer to provide a new bus was irrelevant, as the alleged offences were not compoundable. The respondent-complainant relied on the following cases:

• Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Maninder Singh: To argue against quashing the criminal proceedings.
• State of Gujarat Vs. Gajanand M. Dalwadi (Dead) by LRS: To argue against quashing the criminal proceedings.
• Jasbir Singh vs. Tara Singh and Ors.: To argue against quashing the criminal proceedings.
• Jagdish Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.: To argue against quashing the criminal proceedings.
• Kaptan Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.: To argue against quashing the criminal proceedings.
• Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Arvind Khanna: To argue against quashing the criminal proceedings.

Submissions Table:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues, but the core issue was whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed given the inordinate delay and lack of evidence.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

• State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors. [1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335]: The Court referred to this case to highlight the guidelines for quashing criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of the process of law. The Supreme Court in this case had laid down certain guidelines for the exercise of powers of quashing under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
• State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Ors. [(1977) 2 SCC 699]: The Court cited this case to support the view that criminal proceedings could be quashed if their continuation would be an abuse of the process of the court or if the ends of justice require it.
• State of A.P. Vs. Golconda Linga Swamy & Another [2004 (6) SCC 522]: This case was cited to emphasize that the Court is justified in quashing proceedings if their initiation or continuation would amount to an abuse of the process of Court.
• Hasmukhlal D. Vora & Anr. vs. State of Tamil Nadu [2022 SCC Online SC 1732]: The Court referred to this case to highlight that unexplained inordinate delay must be taken into consideration as a crucial factor for quashing a criminal complaint.
• Dalip Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others [(2010) 2 SCC 114]: The Court quoted this case to highlight the misuse of legal process through false and frivolous proceedings.
• Subrata Roy Sahara vs. Union of India and Others [(2014) 8 SCC 470]: The Court quoted this case to highlight the issue of frivolous litigation in the Indian judicial system.

The Court also considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.): The Court considered this section to highlight the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

Authority Table:

Judgment

Treatment of Submissions:

Treatment of Authorities:

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the inordinate delay in filing the complaint and the lack of evidence to support the allegations. The court emphasized that the criminal machinery was set into motion after an eight-year delay, which was deemed an abuse of the process of law. The court also noted that the allegations were absurd and improbable, and no prudent person could conclude that there was sufficient ground to proceed against the appellants. The court highlighted the misuse of the legal process through false and frivolous proceedings, particularly when initiated by individuals claiming to be spiritual leaders.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons:

Fact:Law Ratio:

Logical Reasoning:

The Court’s reasoning was based on the following:

• The complainant had filed the complaint after an inordinate delay of eight years, which was not sufficiently explained.
• There was no evidence to suggest that the police had received the earlier complaints, and no action was taken by the complainant to follow up on those complaints.
• The investigating officer failed to collect any cogent or substantive evidence against the appellants to prosecute them for the alleged offences.
• The allegations made in the complaint were so absurd and improbable that no prudent person could conclude that there was sufficient ground to proceed against the appellants.
• The Court emphasized that the continuation of such malicious prosecution would be a further abuse of the process of law.

The Supreme Court quoted the following 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 Charge-sheet 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. The decision was unanimous.

Key Takeaways

✓ Inordinate delay in filing a complaint can be a significant factor in quashing criminal proceedings.
✓ Lack of evidence and improbable allegations can lead to the quashing of criminal proceedings.
✓ The courts will not allow the criminal justice system to be used for settling personal scores.
✓ Frivolous litigation is discouraged, and parties initiating such proceedings may be burdened with costs.

This judgment emphasizes the importance of timely complaints and the need for substantial evidence to support criminal allegations. It also serves as a reminder that the courts will not tolerate the misuse of the legal system for personal vendettas.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that 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, be quashed. The respondent-complainant was also directed to deposit a cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- in the office of the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that an inordinate and unexplained delay in filing a criminal complaint, coupled with a lack of evidence and improbable allegations, can be sufficient grounds for quashing criminal proceedings. This decision reinforces the principle that the criminal justice system should not be used for settling personal scores or for frivolous litigation. The court reiterated the guidelines laid down in State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors. [1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335] for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellants, citing an inordinate delay of eight years in filing the complaint, a lack of evidence, and the absurdity of the allegations. The Court emphasized that the criminal justice system should not be used for settling personal scores and imposed costs on the complainant for initiating frivolous litigation.