Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Complaint Against Special Armed Force Officers

The Supreme Court dismissed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against the officers of the Special Armed Forces (SAF) for alleged encroachment to the private property held by the complainant after finding that the complainant/respondent no.1 failed to provide the date on which alleged acts of encroachment and administering threats were made at the instance of the SAF officers.

The complainant/respondent no.1 had filed a contempt petition before the High Court against the appellants for breach of the High Court's order which allowed the complainant's suit for declaration and restrained the appellants from interfering with the possession of the complainant, however, the contempt petition came to be dismissed by the High Court by holding that there was a boundary dispute between the appellant and SAF and the said fact wasn't disclosed by the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. complaint.

The appellants/SAF officers preferred the criminal appeal against the decision of the High Court which had dismissed the appellant's Section 482 Cr.P.C. petition challenging the order of the magistrate directing the cognizance to be taken under Sections 294,323, 427, 447, and 506­B of IPC against the appellants' without recording any finding on the issue of obtaining sanction to prosecute the appellants under Section 197 Cr.P.C.

It is against the dismissal of the petition seeking quashing of the cognizance order of the magistrate by the High Court that the appellant preferred the criminal appeal before the Supreme Court.

At the outset, the Supreme Court opined that the magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the said complaint, as the cognizance was taken after the dismissal of the contempt petition which held that there was a boundary dispute between the appellant and SAF

"In substance, the cause of action for filing the Contempt Petition and the alleged cause of action for filing the complaint was substantially the same. It is surprising that though the Contempt Petition was already filed in 2016, the said fact has not been mentioned in the complaint filed by the first respondent in the year 2017. The fact that the Contempt Petition was filed has not even been disclosed in the statement of the first petitioner recorded in the complaint. The first respondent did not challenge the dismissal of the Contempt Petition. In view of the finding recorded in the Contempt Petition by the High Court, taking the cognizance of the said complaint was surely an abuse of the process of law. The cognizance was taken after the dismissal of the Contempt Petition by a detailed order", the Bench Comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan said while quashing the order taking cognizance of the offence.

"There is another factual aspect of the matter. In the examination of the first respondent on oath in the complaint, he has not given even the date on which alleged acts of encroachment and administering threats were made at the instance of the appellants. In the complaint, the allegation is that on 8th January 2017, the appellant nos.2 to 6 broke the fencing and gave abuses/threats. Surprisingly, this issue was not raised in the Contempt Petition, which was pending till 11th October 2017.", the Judgment authored by Justice Abhay S Oka observed.

The Supreme Court noted that the High Court ought to have quashed the complaint, as the further prosecution of the complaint was itself an abuse of the process of law.

"Therefore, in our view, the further prosecution of the complaint was itself an abuse of the process of law, and therefore, the High Court ought to have quashed the complaint."

Accordingly, the impugned order of the High Court and the impugned order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance was quashed and set aside, and the complaint filed by the first respondent stands dismissed.

The appeal was allowed accordingly.

Counsel For Appellant(s) Mr. N.K. Mody, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prabuddha Singh Gour, Adv. Mr. Sukhamrit Singh, Adv. Mr. Suresh Kumar Bhan, Adv. Mr. Shankar Prasad Tanti, Adv. Mr. Pradeep Sharma, Adv. Ms. Trishla Bahal, Adv. Mr. Praveen Swarup, AOR

Counsel For Respondent(s) Mr. B. K. Pal, AOR Mr. Harmeet Ruprah, D.A.G. Mr. Yashraj Singh Bundela, AOR Mr. Pawan, Adv. Mr. Chanakya Baruah, Adv.

Case Title: Murari Lal Chhari & Ors. versus Munishwar Singh Tomar & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 1076 of 2024

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 192

Click Here To Read/Download the Judgment