Criminal Justice Machinery Being Misused By Certain Persons For Vested Interests; Courts Have To Be Vigilant : Supreme Court

Expressing concerns about the misuse of the criminal justice machinery by certain persons to achieve their oblique motives, the Supreme Court recently urged that the Courts have to be vigilant against such tendencies.

The Supreme Court said that that the High Courts must exercise their inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash criminal proceedings in such cases where the uncontroverted allegations prima facie don't establish the offence, and the chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by the continuation of criminal prosecution.

“We find that in recent years the machinery of criminal justice is being misused by certain persons for their vested interests and for achieving their oblique motives and agenda. Courts have therefore to be vigilant against such tendencies and ensure that acts of omission and commission having an adverse impact on the fabric of our society must be nipped in the bud,” observed a benhc comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih.

The gist of the case is that the complaint has been registered against one Vishal Noble Singh, the Principal of the Bishop Johnson School and College, a minority educational institution which is governed by the Diocese Education Board, Lucknow (DEB) which is run under the Church of North India (CNI).

The complaint alleged that the accused have committed an offence by fabricating documents and based on fabricated and forged documents have operated the School since 2014 and have collected fees from girl students amounting to Rs. 13 crores and distributed the same among themselves.

The First Information Report (“FIR”) was filed under Sections 406 (Punishment for criminal breach of trust), 419 (Punishment for cheating by personation), 420 (Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 467 (Forgery of valuable security, will, etc), 468 (Forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record), and 120B (Punishment of criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”)

The accused had filed the petition for quashing of a FIR before the High Court, which came to be dismissed.

The High Court while relying on the case of Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, reasoned that the allegations of the nature that were the subject matter of the case could only be considered based on evidence at the appropriate stage of trial.

It is against the impugned order/judgment of the High Court that the accused preferred the criminal appeal before the Supreme Court.

At the outset, after perusing the allegations levied in the F.I.R. and the charge-sheet placed on record, the court doubted as to how the allegations against the accused could be brought within the scope and ambit of the aforesaid sections.

“On a reading of the FIR as well as the charge-sheet, we do not find that the offences aforestated is made out at all. We do not find any criminal breach of trust nor any cheating by impersonation. There is also no cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, nor has any documents referred to any forgery or security or any forgery for the purpose of cheating. There is no reference to any document which has been forged so as to be used as a genuine document and much less is as there any criminal conspiracy which can be imputed to the appellants herein in the absence of any offence being made out vis-a-vis the aforesaid Sections.”

Further, the court relied on its judgment of Inder Mohan Goswami vs. State of Uttaranchal, (2007) 12 SCC 1 where the court held that the criminal prosecution is not used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking private vendetta or with an ulterior motive to pressurise the accused, and the inherent jurisdiction of the High Courts under Section 482 Cr.P.C. though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when it is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the statute itself and in the aforementioned cases

“On a careful consideration of the aforementioned judicial dicta, we find that none of the offences alleged against the Accused-Appellants herein is made out. In fact, we find that the allegations of criminal intent and other allegations against the Accused-Appellants herein have been made with a malafide intent and therefore, the judgment of this Court in the case of Bhajan Lal and particularly sub-paragraphs 1, 3, 5 and 7 of paragraph 102, extracted above, squarely apply to the facts of these cases. It is neither expedient nor in the interest of justice to permit the present prosecution to continue.”, the court observed while referring to Inder Mohan Goswami Judgment.

The court further observed that the criminal process cannot be utilized for any oblique purpose and held that while entertaining an application for quashing an FIR at the initial stage, the test to be applied is whether the uncontroverted allegations prima facie establish the offence.

“This Court, in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692, reasoned that the criminal process cannot be 13 utilized for any oblique purpose and held that while entertaining an application for quashing an FIR at the initial stage, the test to be applied is whether the uncontroverted allegations prima facie establish the offence.”

The court also expressed its displeasure against the failure of the complainant to appear before the Court to justify the allegations made in the complaint.

“We say so for the reason that while the second respondent-complainant has made grave allegations against the appellants herein and on whose behalf a charge-sheet has also been filed against such allegations has failed to appear before this Court to justify the same. Such acts would not only cause deep fissures and mistrust between people and also unnecessarily burden the law courts and the criminal justice system.”

The court disagreed with the High Court's decision to deny quashing of FIR based on the Niharika Enterprises Judgment, and explained why the Niharika Enterprises Judgment couldn't have been relied upon by the High Court:

“The facts in the aforementioned case and the present case are quite different. The aforementioned case concerned a special leave petition filed by a complainant aggrieved by an interim order of the Bombay High Court that granted protection to the applicant therein from 'coercive steps.' The grievance of the complainant in that case was that one-and-half years after securing protection from arrest from the Sessions Court, the accused had filed a Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court to quash the FIR. Accordingly, this Court had quashed the interim order of 'no coercive steps' and cautioned against the practice of directing 'no coercive steps' while dismissing applications under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. This Court had also clarified that it was not expressing any view on merits of the application for quashing of the FIR in the said case. Therefore, the High Court ought not to have relied upon the said judgment to deny the relief to the present Accused-Appellants.”

Accordingly, the court set aside the impugned order of the High Court and consequently quashed the FIR, the chargesheet, and all consequent proceedings initiated against the appellant-accused.

Case Details: VISHAL NOBLE SINGH VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR |CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.2389/2023)

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 96

Click Here To Read/Download the Judgment