9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the accused can invoke Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for a second time after an earlier application was withdrawn. 2. Whether an unconditional withdrawal of an earlier Misc. Criminal Application amounts to dismissal, thereby disentitling the petitioner from approaching the High Court again under Section 482. 3. Whether the High Court can quash a complaint under Section 482 if the allegations, despite satisfying the ingredients of the offence, appear inherently improbable and mala fide. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Second Invocation of Section 482: The court addressed whether the accused could file a second application under Section 482 after the first was withdrawn. The court held that there is no bar to entertain a second application under Section 482 as it does not amount to reviewing the earlier judgment or order. The court emphasized that if the petitioner can show a material change in circumstances indicating an abuse of process, the High Court has a duty to intervene, regardless of prior applications. The court cited the Supreme Court decision in *Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, W.B. v. Mohan Singh & Others* to support this view, noting that the High Court must exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of the court. 2. Unconditional Withdrawal of Application: The court considered whether an unconditional withdrawal of an earlier Misc. Criminal Application amounts to a dismissal that prevents the petitioner from filing another application under Section 482. The court referred to the Supreme Court decision in *Ahmedabad Mfg. & Calico Printing Company Limited v. The Workman & Anr.*, which held that permission to withdraw a leave petition cannot be equated with an order of dismissal. Applying this principle, the court concluded that an unconditional withdrawal does not amount to a dismissal and does not bar the petitioner from filing another application under Section 482. 3. Quashing Complaint Under Section 482: The court examined whether it could quash a complaint under Section 482 if the allegations, though satisfying the ingredients of the offence, appear inherently improbable and mala fide. The court noted that while the allegations in the complaint technically satisfied the ingredients of the offences under Sections 448, 341, 504, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, the circumstances indicated that the complaint was inherently improbable and filed with mala fide intentions. The court highlighted several undisputed facts, such as the complainant's lack of lawful possession of the premises and the pattern of filing complaints to deter public servants from performing their duties. The court emphasized that the inherent powers under Section 482 are meant to prevent abuse of the process of law and secure the ends of justice. The court found that the complaint was a counter-blast to legal proceedings initiated against the complainant's client and was intended to demoralize and blackmail public servants. The court concluded that allowing such a complaint to proceed would be an abuse of the process of law and quashed the complaint and the proceedings. Conclusion: The court allowed the Misc. Criminal Application, quashing the process issued pursuant to the complaint and the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 548 of 1992. The court directed the Registry to forward a copy of the judgment to the Chairman, Bar Council of Gujarat, for necessary action.
|
