2008 (5) TMI 687 - SC - Indian Laws

Jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C - Victimisation and harassing of medical students by college authorities - Seeking for entrustment of further investigation of the cases to CBI - two separate petitions u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIRs. HELD THAT - If the ingredients which establish the commission of the offence or misconduct exist then the prosecution cannot fail merely because there was an animus of the complainant or the prosecution against the accused. Allegations of mala fides may be relevant while judging the correctness of the allegations or while examining the evidence. But the mere fact that the complainant is guilty of mala fides would be no ground for quashing the proceedings. See State of Maharashtra v. Ishwar Piraji Kalpatri 1995 (11) TMI 455 - SUPREME COURT ; Zhandu Pharmaceuticals Works Limited and Others v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque and Another 2004 (11) TMI 519 - SUPREME COURT ; State of Bihar Anr. v. J.A.C. Saldanah 1979 (11) TMI 268 - SUPREME COURT . There may be some exceptions to the said rule but we are not concerned with such a case. The entire details of the facts of the present case do indicate that the appellants during their study of MBBS Course had some problems with the second respondent; some staff of the College and the then SHO of P.S. Vijay Nagar whose daughter was also studying in the same College. The record would reveal that both the appellants being NRI candidates have undergone physical and mental agony and torture during their students career in pursuing the MBBS course. They had spent most of their precious time in litigation in the courts fighting for their genuine and legitimate claims. They may be lacking in some indiscipline activities in the College for which they have been facing criminal proceedings for the past about 3 years. Looking to the entire backdrop of the peculiar facts of countless incidents having faced by the appellants during their primary life as MBBS students and the nature of the offences alleged against them in the above mentioned crime cases lodged by Mrs. Indra Mohini Sharma and Rajender Kuntal in Police Station Vijay Nagar Ghaziabad and allegations and counter allegations in various complaints made by the parties against each other and coupled with the tenor and contents of the apology tendered by the appellants we are of the view that it is a fit case where we should exercise our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. We are conscious of the well- settled law that in case of persons against whom prima facie case is made out and charge sheet is filed in the competent court it is that court which will then deal with the case on merits in accordance with law and the High Court should not except in extraordinary circumstances exercise its jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. so as to quash the prosecution proceedings after they have been lodged. Therefore taking into consideration the future career of the appellants who by this time might have joined the noble medical profession and owing to the reasons and observations above stated this appeal is allowed as a result thereof the order of the High Court impugned in this appeal is set aside subject to the directions contained herein - We are of the opinion that it is a fit case where we should exercise our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India so as to bring the dispute between the parties to an end.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the FIRs and criminal proceedings against the appellants.
2. Allegations of mala fide intentions and harassment by the second respondent.
3. Request for CBI investigation.
4. Application of principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal.
5. Exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

Detailed Analysis:

Legitimacy of the FIRs and Criminal Proceedings:
The appellants challenged the FIRs and subsequent criminal proceedings initiated against them, arguing that the allegations were absurd and inherently improbable. They contended that the FIRs were a result of a vindictive attitude by the second respondent, Dr. P. Mahalingam, and were intended to harass them. The High Court, however, found prima facie evidence to proceed with the cases. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had properly evaluated the material and documents on record, and it was not required to appreciate the evidence to determine the sufficiency for conviction at this stage.

Allegations of Mala Fide Intentions and Harassment:
The appellants alleged that Dr. P. Mahalingam had a personal vendetta against them, which led to multiple instances of harassment, including false criminal charges. The Supreme Court acknowledged the appellants' claims of victimization and physical and mental harassment during their MBBS course. However, the Court emphasized that allegations of mala fides are generally to be considered during the trial and not at the stage of quashing proceedings. The Court reiterated that the existence of animus or mala fides by the complainant does not invalidate the criminal proceedings if the allegations prima facie constitute an offense.

Request for CBI Investigation:
The appellants sought to transfer the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) due to alleged bias and influence in the local police's investigation. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, to ensure fair investigation and adequate security for the appellants. The Court did not find sufficient grounds to transfer the investigation to the CBI, especially since the trial had already commenced.

Application of Principles Laid Down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal:
The appellants argued that their case fell within the categories outlined in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, where the Supreme Court had enumerated situations warranting the quashing of FIRs. The High Court and the Supreme Court examined whether the allegations in the FIRs and the evidence collected disclosed a cognizable offense. The Supreme Court found that the allegations and evidence did constitute a cognizable offense, and thus, the principles in Bhajan Lal did not apply to quash the proceedings at this stage.

Exercise of Jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and Article 142 of the Constitution:
The Supreme Court reiterated that the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and only in rarest of rare cases to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice. The Court emphasized that it does not function as a court of appeal or revision while exercising these powers. However, considering the peculiar facts and the prolonged harassment faced by the appellants, the Supreme Court invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice. The Court quashed the criminal proceedings arising out of Case Crime Nos. 412/2005 and 21/2006, directing the appellants to file a written apology in the respective courts.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and quashing the criminal proceedings against the appellants. The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution to bring an end to the prolonged litigation and harassment faced by the appellants, ensuring complete justice. The Court also directed the appellants to file a written apology in the pending cases, emphasizing that the decision was based on the specific facts and circumstances of the case.