2021 (4) TMI 841 - SC - Indian Laws

Prevention from Abuse of Court Processing - Role of Lower Judiciary - misuse of own processes in a judgement - Frivolous Litigation - physical altercation that took place between the Appellants, and the Respondent No. 2 and his wife - HELD THAT - It is a settled canon of law that this Court has inherent powers to prevent the abuse of its own processes, that this Court shall not suffer a litigant utilising the institution of justice for unjust means. Thus, it would be only proper for this Court to deny any relief to a litigant who attempts to pollute the stream of justice by coming to it with his unclean hands. Similarly, a litigant pursuing frivolous and vexatious proceedings cannot claim unlimited right upon court time and public money to achieve his ends. This Court s inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice empowers us to give preference to equity and a justice oriented approach over the strict rigours of procedural law. This Court has used this inherent power to quash criminal proceedings where the proceedings are instituted with an oblique motive, or on manufactured evidence. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the summons issued by the Magistrate.
2. Legitimacy of the second complaint filed by Respondent No. 2.
3. Abuse of the process of law by filing successive complaints.
4. Role of the lower judiciary in preventing frivolous litigation.
5. Application of inherent powers by the Supreme Court to quash proceedings.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Summons Issued by the Magistrate:
The appeal challenges the orders of the Magistrate dated 4.04.2019 and the Sessions Judge dated 13.01.2020, which issued and upheld the summons against the Appellants. The Supreme Court found that the Magistrate and Sessions Judge misunderstood the scope of Section 200 CrPC and misapplied Section 506 Part II IPC to bring the complaint within the limitation period under Section 468 CrPC. The Court noted that the complaint was a material improvement over the initial NCR No. 158/2012, introducing new allegations and witnesses, which were not present in the original complaint.

2. Legitimacy of the Second Complaint Filed by Respondent No. 2:
The Court examined the legitimacy of the second complaint filed by Respondent No. 2 under Section 200 CrPC, almost six years after the incident. It was observed that the second complaint contained significant material improvements and additional allegations compared to the initial NCR No. 158/2012. The Court cited Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash, emphasizing that successive complaints by the same complainant against the same accused for the same incident are prohibited, as they amount to an improvement on the original facts and are thus barred under Section 162 CrPC.

3. Abuse of the Process of Law by Filing Successive Complaints:
The Court highlighted the misuse of the process of law by Respondent No. 2, who filed a second complaint with material improvements and suppressed the fact that a charge sheet had already been filed against him and his wife. The Court referred to its decisions in Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI and T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, stressing that permitting multiple complaints violates Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and liberty. The Court condemned the practice of filing successive complaints as it entangles the accused in numerous criminal proceedings, thereby abusing the judicial process.

4. Role of the Lower Judiciary in Preventing Frivolous Litigation:
The judgment stressed the critical role of the lower judiciary, particularly Magistrates, in curbing frivolous litigation. The Court emphasized that Magistrates must exercise their powers judiciously to prevent the abuse of the court process. It cited Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, which underscores the importance of judicial application of mind before summoning the accused. The Court also referred to Chandra Deo Singh v. Prokash Chandra Bose, which highlights the duty of the Magistrate to scrutinize allegations in a private complaint to prevent frivolous litigation.

5. Application of Inherent Powers by the Supreme Court to Quash Proceedings:
The Supreme Court invoked its inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to quash the criminal proceedings. The Court noted that allowing the fresh complaint case to proceed would perpetuate harassment against the Appellants and violate their rights under Article 21. The Court also quashed all other criminal cases between the parties arising from the incident dated 5.08.2012, to bring a quietus to the prolonged litigation. The Court's decision was guided by the principles laid down in previous cases such as State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih and Monica Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which allow quashing of proceedings instituted with malafide motives.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and quashed the proceedings in Complaint Case No. 2943/2018 and NCR No. 158/2012. The Court also quashed all other criminal cases between the parties related to the incident dated 5.08.2012, invoking its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure complete justice and prevent further abuse of the judicial process. The appeal was allowed in these terms.

← Previous Next →