2013 (1) TMI 853 - SC - Indian Laws

Criminal proceedings launched by respondent no. 1 under Section 3(1)(viii) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Held that - The facts on record make it evident that the land on which both parties claim title/interest had initially been allotted to one Anant Ram, a member of the Schedule Caste community, under the 20 Point Programme of the Government of India (Poverty Elevation Programme) and he sold it to one Ram Lal Aggarwal in the year 1989, who further transferred it to his son Anil Kumar Aggarwal in the year 1990. Anil Kumar Aggarwal sold the same to appellant Ravinder Singh in the year 2005. Respondent No. 1, who at the relevant time was holding a very high position in the Central Government, claimed that initial transfer by Anant Ram, the original allottee, in favour of Ram Lal Aggarwal was illegal and he could not transfer the land allotted to him by the Government under Poverty Elevation Programme and further that as the said land had been encroached upon by his father, he had a right to get his name entered in the revenue record. Thus, it is clear that the respondent no. 1, became the law unto himself and assumed the jurisdiction to decide the legal dispute himself to which he himself had been a party being the son of a rank trespasser. Transfer by the original allottee at initial stage, even if illegal, would not confer any right in favour of the respondent no.1. Thus, he adopted intimidatory tactics by resorting to revenue as well as criminal proceedings against the appellant without realising that even if the initial transfer by the original allottee Anant Ram was illegal, the land may revert back to the Government, and not to him merely because his father had encroached upon the same. The High Court has dealt with the issue involved herein and the matter stood closed at the instance of respondent no.1 himself. Therefore, there can be no justification whatsoever to launch criminal prosecution on that basis afresh. The inherent power of the court in dealing with an extraordinary situation is in the larger interest of administration of justice and for preventing manifest injustice being done. It is a judicial obligation on the court to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice and to prevent continuation of unnecessary judicial process. It may be so necessary to curb the menace of criminal prosecution as an instrument of operation of needless harassment. A person cannot be permitted to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. Ex debito justitiae is inbuilt in the inherent power of the court and the whole idea is to do real, complete and substantial justice for which the courts exist. Thus, it becomes the paramount duty of the court to protect an apparently innocent person, not to be subjected to prosecution on the basis of wholly untenable complaint. In view of the above, the judgment of the High Court impugned herein dated 14.12.2011 as well as of the Revisional Court is set aside. Order of the Metropolitan Magistrate dated 13.8.2009 is restored. The complaint filed by respondent no.1 under the provisions of Section 3(1)(viii) of the Act 1989 is hereby quashed. The appeal is thus allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 3(1)(viii) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
2. Application of the principle of issue estoppel.
3. Interpretation of "false," "malicious," and "vexatious" under the Act.
4. The role of mens rea in criminal prosecution under the Act.
5. The inherent powers of the court to prevent abuse of process.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing of Criminal Proceedings under Section 3(1)(viii) of the Act 1989:
The appellant sought to quash the criminal proceedings initiated by respondent no.1 under Section 3(1)(viii) of the Act 1989, which pertains to instituting false, malicious, or vexatious legal proceedings against a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The High Court had earlier dismissed the appellant's application for quashing these proceedings. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had already adjudicated the matter in a criminal contempt case and found that the fault lay with the appellant's counsel, not the appellant himself. The High Court had accepted the counsel's apology and closed the contempt proceedings, making it clear that the appellant was not well-versed in English and had signed the documents in Hindi.

2. Application of the Principle of Issue Estoppel:
The principle of issue estoppel prevents re-litigation of an issue that has already been determined in a previous trial. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court, in the contempt case, had not found the appellant guilty of any false declaration. Therefore, the same issue could not be re-litigated in the criminal proceedings under the Act 1989. The Court emphasized that the principle of issue estoppel applies where an issue of fact has been tried by a competent court and a finding has been reached in favor of the accused.

3. Interpretation of "False," "Malicious," and "Vexatious" under the Act:
The Supreme Court elaborated on the legal meanings of "false," "malicious," and "vexatious." The term "false" implies an intention to deceive or perpetrate fraud. "Malicious" refers to an intentional act done without just cause or excuse, often with spite or ill will. "Vexatious" means harassment by the process of law, lacking justification, or intending to harass. The Court held that merely because the appellant was unsuccessful in quashing the FIR does not mean he filed a false case. There is a difference between "not proved" and "false."

4. The Role of Mens Rea in Criminal Prosecution under the Act:
The Court emphasized that for a prosecution under Section 3(1)(viii) of the Act 1989, it must be established that the alleged offense was committed with the intention (mens rea) to cause harm to a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The Court cited previous judgments to highlight that the presence of mens rea is crucial for such prosecutions.

5. The Inherent Powers of the Court to Prevent Abuse of Process:
The Supreme Court reiterated that the inherent powers of the court are meant to prevent abuse of the judicial process and to ensure that justice is served. The Court observed that the respondent no.1 had resorted to multiple legal proceedings to harass the appellant, which constituted an abuse of process. The Court held that it is a judicial obligation to protect an innocent person from being subjected to unnecessary prosecution.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and the Revisional Court, restoring the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate, which had rejected the complaint filed by respondent no.1. The criminal complaint under Section 3(1)(viii) of the Act 1989 was quashed, and the appeal was allowed. The Court also noted that its observations should not affect any civil or revenue cases pending between the parties.

← Previous Next →