Telangana High Court

Manda Subhash, Nizamabad vs State Of Telangana, Rep. By P.P., ... on 27 December, 2021

Bench: G.Radha Rani

         THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI

             CRIMINAL PETITION No.9328 of 2014
ORDER:

This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.3 under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in CC No.1300 of 2007

on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad for the

offences under Sections 290, 324, 341, 342, 506 read with 34 IPC.

2. The 2nd respondent lodged a private complaint before the

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad, against the petitioner,

his brother and sister alleging that the house where she was residing in

was a joint family property of her husband and the father of A1 to A3.

On 04.07.2007, when she was getting her portion repaired, A1 to A3

abused her, caused obstruction to the repair works and beat her with

hands and sticks, due to which she sustained injuries. When her

husband and her son tried to interfere, they were also abused and

threatened by the accused. On the same day, she lodged a complaint

with the Police, I-Town Police Station Nizamabad, and she was sent

to the hospital. The police registered a case only against the

petitioner's brother and sister i.e. A1 and A2 under Sections 290, 323

IPC vide STC No.398 of 2007. They pleaded guilty and paid fine as

per the orders dated 06.07.2008 in STC No.398 of 2007 on the file of

the Special Judicial Magistrate of II Class, Nizamabad. Aggrieved by

registering of STC Case only against A1 and A2, she preferred the

private complaint including the petitioner also as A3.

Dr.GRR,J

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

counsel for the 2nd respondent - complainant.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case

against A1 and A2 was quashed by the Hon'ble High Court on

16.08.2012 vide Crl.P. Nos.8392 and 9620 of 2009. The present case

filed by the 2nd respondent was nothing but repetition of the

allegations made by her against the petitioner's family members in the

earlier complaint given by her, which resulted in registering of STC

No.398 of 2007 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of II

Class, Nizamabad which consequently resulted in their conviction.

There were no allegations against the petitioner in the said case. The

2nd respondent erroneously initiated present proceedings in CC

No.1300 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nizamabad, against the petitioner only to wreak vengeance against

him and his family members. The complaint in CC No.1300 of 2007

would not contain any fresh allegations against the petitioner except

the very same allegations made in STC No.398 of 2007 on the file of

the Special Judicial Magistrate of II Class, Nizamabad for which the

petitioner was not a party. The action of the 2nd respondent in filing

CC No.1300 of 2007 violated the fundamental rights guaranteed under

the Constitution of India. The complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent

was an abuse of process of law initiated to settle the property disputes

in the family and prayed to quash the proceedings.

5. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, on the other hand,

contended that the family of the petitioner managed the police as such Dr.GRR,J

the police filed only STC case that too against A1 and A2 alone. The

petitioner was not a party to the said STC or to the quash petition filed

by A1 and A2 and requested the Court to permit the proceedings in

CC No.1300 of 2007 to continue so that the petitioner could prove his

negligence before the Court after full-fledged trial and prayed to

dismiss the petition.

6. Perused the record. The 2nd respondent stated in her private

complaint that the police registered a petty case against A1 and A2 for

the offence under Section 290 and 323 IPC instead of registering a

proper case against the accused and changed the very complaint

lodged by her and acted in favour of the accused and deleted the name

of A3. They suppressed the real facts, the fact of her sustaining

bleeding injuries due to beating by the accused with hands and blunt

objects like sticks, police had not investigated the case properly and

helped the accused to escape from punishment. It would also reveal

from the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent that the police also

registered a petty case against the 2nd respondent for the offences

punishable under Sections 290, 323 IPC wherein it was alleged that

the 2nd respondent abused the accused and bet them. She stated that it

was only when she was brought before the Court, she came to know

that the police registered a petty case instead of registering a case for

major offences and contended that the police made the accused to pay

fine amount, let them from proper punishment for the major offences,

she also made a representation to the Superintendent of Police,

Nizamabad for taking action against the accused but, as there was no Dr.GRR,J

response from the police till date and as they were helping the accused

to go away from India to America and to escape from the criminal

case, lodged the complaint.

7. Thus, there was a family dispute with regard to the joint

family property and a quarrel took place between both the parties and

filed criminal cases against each other which were registered by the

police as petty cases vide STC No.398 of 2007, 389 and 309 of 2007

and the accused persons were convicted and sentenced to pay fine in

the said cases. The petitioner was not shown as accused in STC

No.398 of 2007 and the same was filed only against his brother and

sister, shown as A1 and A2. The private complaint was filed by the

2nd respondent against A1 to A3 which was numbered as CC No.1300

of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nizamabad. A1 and A2 filed Criminal Petition Nos.8032 and 9626 of

2009 for quashing the proceedings in CC No.1300 of 2007 and the

same were allowed on 16.08.2012 observing that since the petitioners

therein were tried and prosecuted earlier, they could not be again

prosecuted for the same offences in view of the bar under Section 300

(1) Cr.P.C. and continuation of proceedings was nothing but an abuse

of process of law. Further, it was held that under Clause - (2) of

Article 20 of the Constitution of India, no person shall be prosecuted

and punished for the same offence more than once, therefore, the

proceedings in CC No.1300 of 2007 were liable to be quashed against

the petitioners therein.

Dr.GRR,J

9. The contention of the petitioner in the present petition was

that the present complaint was filed by the 2nd respondent without any

fresh allegations except on the very same allegations made in STC

No.398 of 2007 in which he was not a party. The second complaint

on the very same allegations was impermissible. He relied upon the

judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Samta Naidu and Anr. v.

State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.1 and of Krishna Lal Chawla

and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another.2

10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Samta Naidu case (1 supra),

after considering the previous cases on the issue whether the second

complaint was maintainable or not on the basis of the same facts and

or on new facts, observed that:

"17. As against the facts in Shivshankar, the present case stands on a different footing. There was no legal infirmity in the first complaint filed in the present matter. The complaint was filed more than a year after the sale of the vehicle which meant the complainant had reasonable time at his disposal. The earlier complaint was dismissed after the Judicial Magistrate found that no prima facie case was made out; the earlier complaint was not disposed of on any technical ground; the material adverted to in the second complaint was only in the nature of supporting material; and the material relied upon in the second complaint was not such which could not have been procured earlier. Pertinently, the core allegations in both the complaints were identical. In the circumstances, the instant matter is completely covered by the decision of this Court in Taluqdar as explained in Criminal Appeal Nos.367-368 of 2020 @ SLP(Crl.) Nos.4418-4419 of 2020 Samta Naidu & Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.

in Jatinder Singh and Poonam Chand Jain. The High Court was thus not justified in holding the second complaint to be maintainable."

Crl.A.Nos.367-368 of 2020, dated 02.03.2020

2021 (5) SCC 435 Dr.GRR,J

11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the latest judgment in Krishna

Lal Chawla case (2 supra) held that:

"15. The sum of the above circumstances and precedents leads us to what we see as an inevitable conclusion. That Respondent No. 2's institution of the fresh complaint case in 2018 under Section 200 CrPC was a concerted effort to mislead the Magistrate with the oblique motive of harassing the Appellants with a frivolous and vexatious case against them. That the same was a counterblast to the charge sheet dated 17.09.2017 filed against Respondent No. 2 and his wife in the case registered by the Appellant. The history of illwill and malice between the parties leads further credence to Respondent No.2's motivations for tying up the Appellants in frivolous and harrowing criminal litigation, long years after the alleged incident. Respondent No.2's conduct in filing a delayed complaint case, suppressing material facts, and utilising fresh proceedings to materially improve on his earlier version, in totality, amounts to gross abuse of the process of court.

22. Frivolous litigation should not become the order of the day in India. From misusing the Public Interest Litigation jurisdiction of the Indian courts to abusing the criminal procedure for harassing their adversaries, the justice delivery system should not be used as a tool to fulfil personal vendetta. The Indian judiciary has taken cognizance of this issue. In 2014, this Court elucidated as follows, the plight of a litigant caught in the cobweb of frivolous proceedings in Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India, (2014) 8 SCC 470:

"191...One needs to keep in mind, that in the process of litigation, there is an innocent sufferer on the other side, of every irresponsible and senseless claim. He suffers long drawn anxious periods of nervousness and restlessness, whilst the litigation is pending, without any fault on his part. He pays for the litigation, from out of his savings (or out of his borrowings), worrying that the other side may trick him into defeat, for no fault of his. He spends invaluable time briefing counsel and preparing them for his claim. Time which he should have spent at work, or with his family, is lost, for no fault of his..."

While the Court's ruling pertained to civil proceedings, these observations ring true for the criminal justice machinery as well. We note, with Dr.GRR,J

regret, that 7 years hence, and there has still been no reduction in such plight. A falsely accused person not only suffers monetary damages but is exposed to disrepute and stigma from society. While running from pillar to post to find a lawyer to represent his case and arranging finances to defend himself before the court of law, he loses a part of himself.

23. As aforesaid, the trial courts and the Magistrates have an important role in curbing this injustice. They are the first lines of defence for both the integrity of the criminal justice system, and the harassed and distraught litigant. We are of the considered opinion that the trial courts have the power to not merely decide on acquittal or conviction of the accused person after the trial, but also the duty to nip frivolous litigations in the bud even before they reach the stage of trial by discharging the accused in fit cases. This would not only save judicial time that comes at the cost of public money, but would also protect the right to liberty that every person is entitled to under Article 21 of the Constitution. In this context, the trial Judges have as much, if not more, responsibility in safeguarding the fundamental rights of the citizens of India as the highest court of this land."

12. Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the

petitioner that the petitioner was pursuing higher education in USA

and the Court mechanically issued summons basing on the very same

incident on 04.07.2007 wherein a complaint was lodged earlier, which

resulted in registering of STC No.398 of 2007 and also resulted in

conviction of the A1 and A2 therein and there were no allegations

against the petitioner in the said complaint, and the present complaint

was filed subsequently on 16.07.2007 by adding more sections and

including the petitioner - A3, the continuation of the criminal

proceedings against the petitioner - A3 is considered as an abuse of

process of law, as instituted with an oblique motive to harass him,

hence, considered fit to quash the proceedings.