The Supreme Court in its recent ruling found that even if the allegations were believed to be true, they did not constitute the offense as alleged. It observed the possibility of the FIR being a result of vengeance or personal grudge due to the filing of multiple FIRs over time. Thus, it quashed the criminal proceedings arising from the FIR.
Brief facts:
In the case of Mahmood Ali & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., an FIR (First Information Report) was filed against Mahmood Ali and others alleging serious offenses under the (IPC) including fraud, illegal appointments, exploitation of employees, and threats. The FIR was lodged by an individual who claimed to have been exploited by the accused. According to the complainant, he was coerced into fraudulent appointments, forced to sign blank documents, and threatened, leading to his resignation from a company where he was fraudulently appointed as a Director.
Contention of Appellants (Accused Persons):
The accused contended that the FIR's allegations were baseless, absurd, and improbable, especially considering the substantial delay of 14 years in filing the FIR from the alleged incident date in 2008. They argued that the State machinery, particularly after a change in the government, misused its power to target the accused and their family members, registering multiple false cases against them. The accused claimed that despite court protections, the police kept registering new FIRs against them and harassed not just the accused but also those who stood surety for them in bail cases. They contended that even after the charge sheet was filed, the allegations in the FIR did not constitute offenses under the sections mentioned, and they sought the quashing of the FIR on these grounds.
Contention of State of U.P. (Respondent):
The State argued that substantial evidence, including statements of witnesses and collected materials, pointed towards the accused's involvement in serious offenses, such as being part of the mining mafia and exploiting vulnerable individuals. The State pointed out that a change in government allowed individuals who were previously suppressed or unsupported to come forward and file complaints against the accused, resulting in multiple FIRs. They emphasized the importance of allowing criminal proceedings to continue against the accused, alleging that their actions were against the social interests of the community and necessitated legal action.
Observation of the court:
The court noted that even if the prosecution's entire case was believed, the FIR failed to disclose the essential elements constituting the alleged offenses. It emphasized that none of the ingredients to establish the offenses mentioned in the FIR were evident. The court observed that the FIR seemed concocted and fabricated. It highlighted the considerable delay of 14 years in filing the FIR, the absence of specific dates or times for alleged offenses, and multiple FIRs being filed against the accused. The court acknowledged its responsibility to scrutinize cases where proceedings were alleged to be frivolous or vexatious. It stressed the need to look beyond the content of the FIR alone and consider surrounding circumstances to prevent abuse of legal processes for personal vendettas. Referring to the Bhajan Lal case, the court reiterated the parameters for quashing FIRs, emphasizing instances where allegations were absurd, manifestly frivolous, or where criminal proceedings appeared to be maliciously instituted.
The decision of the court:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the criminal proceedings based on the FIR in question. It clarified that its observations were limited to this specific case and wouldn't affect other pending prosecutions or proceedings.
Case title: Mahmood Ali & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 2341 of 2023)
Case no.: Criminal Appeal No. 2341 of 2023 in the Supreme Court of India.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.R. Gavai, Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala
Advocates for the appellants: Mr. Siddhartha Dave, a learned senior counsel.
Advocates for the State of U.P. & Ors.: Ms. Garima Prasad, the learned AAG.
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
