[S.482 CrPC] During Quashing Proceedings, Court Has Duty To Look At Overall Circumstances To Assess Whether Criminal Case Was Initiated Maliciously: Kerala HC

Justice A. Badharudeen observed that criminal proceedings initiated with ulterior and malafide motives to wreak vengeance due to personal or private grudges cannot be allowed to continue. The Court said:

“Therefore, the legal position is clear that quashment of criminal proceedings can be resorted to when the prosecution materials do not constitute materials to attract the offence alleged to be committed. Similarly, the Court owes a duty to look into the other attending circumstances, over and above the averments to see whether there are materials to indicate that a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and proceeding instituted maliciously with ulterior motives. Once the said fact is established, the same is a good reason to quash the criminal proceedings.”

In the facts of the case, the petitioners approached the Court seeking to quash the final report and criminal proceedings initiated against them alleging commission of offences under 143 (punishment for formation of unlawful assembly), 147 (punishment for rioting), 447 (punishment for criminal trespass), 294(b) (obscene act and songs), 506(i) (punishment for criminal intimidation) and Section 149 (Unlawful Assembly) of the IPC.

The specific allegation was that the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention formed an unlawful assembly, criminally trespassed and threatened the de-facto complainant due to non-payment of loan by her husband from the Citizens Co-operative Society.

The counsel for the accused submitted that none of the offences were made out and thus final report and proceedings have to be quashed. It was also alleged that the case was filed by the de facto complainant to seek vengeance against the Citizens Co- operative Society officials for demanding repay of loan amount since her husband was unable to repay it.

The Court found that the husband of the de-facto complainant had to pay loan arrears and the Society officials demanded for its repayment. It found that crime was registered subsequent to this to seek revenge for demanding repayment for the loan amount.

“Having considered the genesis of this case, as one arose out of demand of the loan arrears, at the instance of the husband of the de facto complainant, false implication to wreck vengeance on account of demand of the loan amount could be noticed”, added the Court.

Relying upon Apex Court decisions, the Court stated that the judicial process cannot be initiated to harass and seek oblique motives. It stated that the Court has the inherent power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of CrPC when judicial proceedings were converted into an instrument of operation or harassment. It stated that criminal proceedings initiated due to malafide and ulterior motives should be quashed.

The Court further stated that complaint or FIR would be well drafted if it was filed with ulterior motives for wrecking vengeance. The Court stated that it has a duty to observe the attending and overall circumstances above the averments made in the complaint or FIR to assess if it discloses the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence.

“In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under S.482 of the Cr.P.C. or Art.226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation / registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation”, stated the Court.

In the facts of the case, the Court found that multiple FIRs were lodged against the petitioner at different points of time to seek vengeance due to a personal grudge.

As such, the Court quashed the final report and proceedings against the petitioners.

Counsel for Petitioners: Advocates C K Anwar, K S Sumeesh, Aswathi Vakkayil

Counsel for Respondents: Senior Public Prosecutor Renjit George

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 365

Case Title: Jitha Sanjay v State of Kerala

Case Number: CRL.MC NO. 2016 OF 2023

Click here to read/download Judgment