The Supreme Court has reiterated that crimimal proceedings cannot be brushed aside merely on the ground that complaint was lodged by political opposition.
The Division Bench comprising of Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice AS Bopanna while dismissing SLP filed by BJP politician, Ramveer Upadhyay observed that the fact that the complaint may have been initiated by reason of political vendetta is not in itself ground for quashing the criminal proceedings
"It is possible that a false complaint may have been lodged at the behest of a political opponent. However, such possibility would not justify interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings"
The petitioner-politician was charged for offences under Section 365 read with Section 511 IPC and Section 3(1)(Dha) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989.
Petitioner-Politician's Counsel vehemently argued that the case is a classic example of malicious prosecution of the petitioners, who have been embroiled in a false criminal case, due to political animosity.
Emphasizing on Section 14 of the SC/ ST Act, it was submitted that only the Special Judge under the Atrocities Act was competent to pass an order for issuance of summons and and since Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hathras was without jurisdiction, the High Court should have quashed the proceedings in exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. He contended that the case is patently a case of malicious prosecution which stemmed from political rivalry and was in gross abuse of the process of Court.
Counsel for the respondent, on the other cited Shantaben Bhurabhai Bhuriya Vs. Anand Athabhai Chaudhari, 2021 Latest Caselaw 519 SC wherein the Court had rejected the contention that only Special Court could take cognizance of offences under the Atrocities Act.
The Court noted that there was apparently a political rivalry between the Petitioner-politician and Respondent's employer, however it cannot be said that the allegations in the complaint do not make out offence under the Atrocities Act.
Noting that quashing the criminal proceedings at the very inception might result in injustice, it added:
"It is possible that Complaint Case No.19/2018 may have been prompted by political vendetta against the Petitioner No.1. However, since as observed above, the allegations in the complaint case make out an offence under Section 3 of the Atrocities Act, it would not be proper to nip the complaint in the bud, more so, when there are statements recorded in Court under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. The possibility of retaliation on the part of the Petitioners by the acts alleged in the complaint, after closure of the earlier complaint No.17 of 2010 cannot be ruled out."
The fact that the complaint may have been initiated by reason of political vendetta is not in itself ground for quashing the criminal proceedings,the Court observed citing Sheonandan Paswan Vs. State of Bihar & Ors [1982] , 1982 Latest Caselaw 100 SC.
"It is a well established proposition of law that a criminal prosecution, if otherwise justified and based upon adequate evidence, does not become vitiated on account of mala fides or political vendetta of the first informant or complainant. Though the view of Bhagawti, CJ in Sheonandan Paswan (supra) was the minority view, there was no difference of opinion with regard to this finding."
The Court also quoted Krishna Iyer, J., Gurdial Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab, 2011 Latest Caselaw 72 SC , “if the use of power is of fulfilment of a legitimate object the actuation or catalysation by malice is not legicidal.”
Quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C
Stressing on the judicious use of inherent powers of the High Court, the Court referred to P. Mahalingam Vs. Monica Kumar & ANR., 2011 Latest Caselaw 912 SC, Mrs. Dhanalakshmi Vs. R. Prasanna Kumar & Ors, 1989 Latest Caselaw 346 SC
The Court referred to catena of rulings in this regard including Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia & ANR Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Ors, 1988 Latest Caselaw 36 SC, Inder Mohan Goswami & Another Vs. State of Uttaranchal & Others, 2007 Latest Caselaw 807 SC, Kapil Agarwal Vs. Sanjay Sharma, 2021 Latest Caselaw 104 SC State of Haryana & Ors Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors, 1990 Latest Caselaw 365 SC
Rejecting the petition, the Court noted:
"The allegations in the complaint constitute offence under the Attrocities Act. Whether the allegations are true or untrue, would have to be decided in the trial. In exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Court does not examine the correctness of the allegations in a complaint except in exceptionally rare cases where it is patently clear that the allegations are frivolous or do not disclose any offence."
Case Title: Ramveer Upadhyay & Anr. vs State of U.P. & Anr.
Case Details: SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 2953 OF 2022; APRIL 20, 2022
Coram: Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice AS Bopanna
Read Judgement Here:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
