Abhey Singh And ANR v. Sewa Ram
!"
#$!
!%
&% '%( #) *
+ ! "
# #
$%&%'( %
, '% -./ #% . %
0%( -./ .
&%(1 #!%*/ .
2
#
) "
! +% + +%%% %*1 &%(%/
!%% 5% 6 7$ 8(!$
4
& ( # 44/ 4
/
/ 4
)11
& ;(%$ )!% "
(** # 44/
<%1"/ / 11$/ % %+*+1 )%7 ! *+" %( %%
* '#
=$ .$/ ! +(%! +1 %$
1 %( !(
+ %. % !(/ ( 1 ( $! (%!
0 %*"
*/ % 11"
%8(
1 ) %. / !).%/ !"
%(
!% %+/ % $!%$ % !( 17 %$
3/ )! % %*. */ !% %. $. $ !*
0!"
1 !%) %7 !* ($ >(% ! !
0!%%/
)% !% !( )! +%/ %* / * !% $. !* $
( 4 " % / +!" 1 . "1 %(1 ( 8(1"
1
?% #% (1 %1 11 $%. %%% )11 .% #$!
%1 ** # 44/
.% #$!
!) +%
(11"
%%
+ !.$ / %. "
11$ * % $%1 .$( (%
: . 1 (% 1 @:
%$% # 44/4 /
A4 &1 # ?@/ ;(%$ !* / +%(%B !* )!%) *
/ *% %% . 44A4 @: . >($*
&4 ;(%$/ !).%/ ! %1 +%
@(%!%/ !% % 1 1"
1$$ 11$ +% 11$ %$%
*%1"
1.11 .%* ( 1*
(!/ %.
1* +%% 44
%.%/ ? .1 1 1!
"
>(%"
( % ! +%/ !%
%
1 %$% +1 >($* %% C6 1 #(+%*
C.$ !% (1 % +%($ %% / %+% (
%$1 %% +% )!1 1 . $$ %.1%"
(%%
1!
+% 1*/ +%(1
*+%./ % 11) ! " # $ % % & % ' (
!"
# ! $
!
%
!!
! %
!! ! "
' !
!
!
! ! !
! !"
# (** 11$ ** 44 :&/ +(! 1 *+%* (+
"%/
)(1 ++1"
+% 1* !11
( <!
C6 1 #(+%* &)* + % *, - &./ 0
' // $%11"
!1 +(%+ 1(1$ +% 1* %1. )(1 1$ % ( +%( 7 $B % ( +%
!/ 1
C).%/ %$$%$ * (%% 3/ !%%/ 7$ $B 9 %%
@(%!%/ !% 11$ (%%
1 * ( +%(1 * % *+! 1 +%$ $ %
%*
* *%1"
*+ .%* 1* 8( %
%* 3
0! % (% %% % %* *1 . +%( %$% $ $. >(% (% %+*+1
? %%%
* +%+% D4 %
2/ !).% +% %*
%.%/ @: %$%
/ . %1 +% **$ %* @: . >($*
&4 ;(%$
D!1 1"
$ %*1 1) *!%"
* 1$$ % %$% @: %*11"
.) (% (+ (%* $%"
(
C/ * *+%. %1"
$1"
9+1 1"
) ,($ !
C6 1 +9 1&2 %1'3 .4
44/ +7$ !%($!
E!/ ,
%. 11) ( " # ) ! !!
! ! ! !! !
!
! "
* ! + !
! " , " - ! ./ ( / +)% 9 +% 1* % 34
(%/ !% ++1 % !/ $. %(* / 1"
+%+%1"
9+1 % 7$ $B %"
% >(
C).%/ +%. %1. (% % (!
0%1 (%/ $ 1"
%%$ % $
(!/ %% %* 7$ $B $ +%$ +% .%(
10.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court strongly condemns the unscrupulous and unethical practice of launching criminal prosecution in order to harass the party opposite, out of personal spite and vengeance. The stream of justice must not be allowed to be clogged by illintended, vexatious proceedings which further burdens the already overworked Courts. The odious act of initiating criminal prosecution to hassle he party opposite to pressurize them to withdraw litigation is clearly an atrocious abuse of the process of law, which cannot go unchecked. The sanctity of the judicial process cannot be allowed to be smeared by letting ill-intentioned, resentful litigants to use it as an instrument of oppression. 11.
A two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal AIR 1992 SC 604, speaking through Justice Ratnavel Pandian, held as follows:
"107. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section
+ 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
5. Where the allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." (emphasis supplied) Further still, a two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahmood Ali and others vs. State of U.P.2023 AIR SC 3709, wherein, speaking through Justice J.B. Pardiwala, the following was observed: "12. At this stage, we would like to observe something important.
Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings.
The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not.
look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under section 482 of the CrPC, 1973 or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged."(emphasis added)
.) ( ./ % >( )11 %. +%$ % 8(!
%$1"/ +% + 11)
4
& ( # 44/ 4
/
/ 4
8(! + !
& ;(%$/ !% "
&$ *11( ++1 / "/ !11 1 +
#
,"
" * 0 D!!% +7$A% -A2 D!!% %+% 1 -A2