"Frivolous Litigation": Kerala High Court Upholds Dismissal Of Criminal Complaint Against 48 High Ranking Bureaucrats, Police Officials

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, while dismissing the revision petition, noted that the petitioner had filed the complaint by extracting various statutory provisions with vacuous allegations without any material to substantiate them. The Court held thus:

“As pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, the complaint filed by the revision petitioner is undoubtedly an abuse of the process of the court. On an appreciation of the circumstances arising in the case, this Court is of the view that the learned Magistrate was justified in dismissing the complaint, nipping off, at the threshold itself, a frivolous litigation.”

Justice Thomas quoted a proemial passage from the Apex Court decision Krishna Lal Chawla and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2021) to point out that curtailing vexatious litigation was imperative to achieve an effective justice system for the reduction of backlog of cases. Stating that it finds meaningful in the context of the present case, the Court quoted thus:

“A significant factor in this backlog (of cases) is the vast mass of frivolous litigation instituted year after year by litigants with an intent to use the courts of justice for their own mischievous ends. Curtailing such vexatious litigation is, thus, a crucial step towards a more effective justice system - a step that cannot be taken without the active involvement of the lower judiciary, especially in criminal proceedings.”

Background Facts

The petitioner filed a complaint against high ranking government and police officials of the state like the Chief Secretary, the Home Secretary, the Law Secretary, the State Police Chief, the Additional Director General of Police, Commissioners of Police, Superintendents of Police and others before the Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The offences alleged in the complaint were forgery, conspiracy, cheating, violence, breach of trust and even disobeyed the directions of law. The complaint was based on three different complaints that was filed by the petitioner within the limits of three different police stations. The main allegation was that the respondents took bribe and forged the petitioner’s signature on three notices served on the petitioner relating to the three complaints filed by him. The Magistrate dismissed the complaint on finding that there was no sufficient ground for proceeding against the respondents. The petitioner challenged the dismissal of the complaint by the Magistrate before the High Court.

The petitioner, appeared, party in person and argued that he had evidence from a trustworthy laboratory to prove that the respondents have forged his signature. In the complaint, he also claimed for a compensation for five crore rupees for forging his signature and handwriting. The petitioner also contended that for saving the judiciary and the Constitution of India, life imprisonment must be imposed upon the accused.

Public Prosecutor C N Prabhakaran, appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner was abusing the process of law by indulging in harassing the respondents. It was also submitted that there was no evidence to make out any offences against the respondents from the complaint. It was also argued that prior government sanction was not obtained before prosecuting against the respondents who were high ranking government and police officials.

Findings of the Court

The Court found that there was no clarity on the nature or manner in which the alleged offences were committed by the respondents. It found that vague, confusing and sweeping allegations of general nature have been made against the respondents.

The Court found that the petitioner’s main grievance was that the police officials forged his signatures on three notices allegedly served on him relating to three complaints filed by him. The Court found that the results of the forensic analysis of the signatures done at the instance of the petitioner does not prove forgery.

The Court stated that the compliant has been made without even making any basic allegation regarding the role attributable to each of the respondents. The Court held that the petitioner has raised wild, unconnected and incomprehensible allegations against the respondent. Justice Thomas held that the Magistrate has rightly dismissed the complaint as there were no offences made out against the respondents. It held thus:

“When complaints of an inscrutable nature are pursued, and when the Magistrate is satisfied that there are no sufficient grounds for proceeding with the complaint, the Magistrate has the power to dismiss the complaint under section 203 CrPC.”

Thus, the Court dismissed the revision petition.

Case title: Asif Azad V State of Kerala

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 424

Case number: Crl. Rev. Pet. 761 Of 2022