Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1016 (ALL)

Kishan Chandra Jain v. State of U. P.

2024-04-09

PRASHANT KUMAR

body2024
JUDGMENT : Prashant Kumar, J. 1. Heard Shri Shivam Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Shashi Dhar Pandey, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the records. 2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 22.11.2016 passed by Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar in Case No. 2985 of 2015 arising out of Case Crime No. 245 of 2007 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 and 448 I.P.C. Police Station- Feelkhana, District-Kanpur Nagar. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are tenant in a property which is a residential house. The complainant herein is a subsequent purchaser of the property and had become a landlord and he wanted to get the premises vacated instead of initiating civil proceeding for vacation of the property. The complainant by abusing the process of the Court had filing false and frivolous FIR against the tenant. An FIR was lodged on 15.11.2007 alleging that when the applicants asked to vacate the property, he abused and threatened them to face dire consequences and also stated that he will install his saw-mill in the property. After lodging of the FIR, a charge-sheet was filed on 09.12.2007. The charge-sheet was challenged by means of an Application U/S 482 CrPC No. 1658 of 2008. This was disposed of vide order dated 17.10.2014 granting liberty to the applicants to file a discharge application which was rejected on 22.11.2016. The applicants have filed the instant application challenging the order dated 22.11.2016 by which the discharge application was dismissed. 4. Mr. Shivam, counsel for the applicants submits that the landlord had initiated eviction proceedings in the year 2006, in which, an order of eviction was passed by the prescribed authority. This order was challenged by the applicants by means of the Writ Petition No. 50797 of 2006 before this Court. 5. While the writ petition was pending before this Court, the instant FIR had been lodged with the allegation that the complainant had asked the applicants to vacate the property and had threatened them. There was no reason for him to ask them to vacate the property when the matter was already subjudiced before this Court. 6. 5. While the writ petition was pending before this Court, the instant FIR had been lodged with the allegation that the complainant had asked the applicants to vacate the property and had threatened them. There was no reason for him to ask them to vacate the property when the matter was already subjudiced before this Court. 6. This writ petition came to be allowed on 24th April, 2009 and against which, the landlord had preferred a Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) bearing No. 30192 of 2009 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was dismissed on 11.03.2011. 7. He further submits that an allegation was made against the applicants that he has illegally installed a saw-mill in the premises. A proceeding under Section 77 of the Forest Act was initiated against him which was challenged by the applicant and the same was allowed vide order dated 28.02.2009 by the ADJ, Kanpur Nagar which has been challenged by the Forest Department and the same is still pending in the High Court. 8. The counsel for the applicants further submits that the complainant who is a landlord, is abusing the process of law by filing similar cases against the other tenant as well in the same building. The other similarly situated tenant had challenged the similar criminal proceedings initiated by the landlord by means of the Application under Section 482 CrPC No. 27745 of 2007 and the same was allowed vide order dated 04.12.2007. 9. He further submits that the landlord after not succeeding to throw out the tenant has been filing criminal cases against him just to put undue pressure on the applicants. He further submits that the entire proceedings initiated by the complainant is nothing but a pure abuse of process of law. 10. To buttress his arguments, he is placing reliance upon a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Chandrapal Singh & Ors. v. Maharaj Singh & Ors, AIR 1982 SC 1238 , wherein, it is held as under : "13. We have now to examine whether in the background of these facts any criminal court would have entertained a complaint of the landlord under Sections 199 and 201 I.P.C. In the whole complaint there is not the slightest whisper as to what evidence was available which the appellants destroyed. We have now to examine whether in the background of these facts any criminal court would have entertained a complaint of the landlord under Sections 199 and 201 I.P.C. In the whole complaint there is not the slightest whisper as to what evidence was available which the appellants destroyed. ...The complaint, therefore, in respect of an offence under Section 201 IPC is liable to be quashed on the ground that there is not even the slightest allegation to contribute an offence." 11. He further placed reliance upon a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Neetu Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., [arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 783 of 2020], wherein, it is held as under : "Learned counsel for respondent No.3 states that there are huge arrears of rent which have to be recovered. It will be open to respondent No.3 to take recourse to such civil remedy as is available to him in law. Recording the above, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed quashing the First Information Report. The question when the appellant vacated the property and arrears of rent, etc. are left open to be decided in civil proceedings." 12. He further placed reliance on a judgment passed by this Court in the matter of Irshad Khan & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr. [Application U/S 482 No. 23501 of 2011], in which, it is held as follows : "28. Moreover, since the tenancy dispute which is civil in nature is in the genesis of this case and the parties have already amicably settled their dispute out of the court, therefore, to keep survive the criminal case would be futile exercise, particularly in view that the o.p. no. 2 is now not interested to prosecute the applicants and further he does not want to adduce any evidence against them. Thus, there is no chance of conviction of the applicants. In case the trial of the criminal case is allowed to continue, it would be an abuse of the process of the Court. The submission of the learned A.G.A. that the offence under Section 379 I.P.C. in this case is not compoundable and, therefore, compromise arrived at between the parties is within the teeth of Section 320 of the Code, is not acceptable. The submission of the learned A.G.A. that the offence under Section 379 I.P.C. in this case is not compoundable and, therefore, compromise arrived at between the parties is within the teeth of Section 320 of the Code, is not acceptable. Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi's Case (Supra) clearly held that for the purpose of securing the ends of justice quashing of F.I.R. becomes necessary, section 320 of the Code would not be a bar to the exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code for quashing. It is also held that Section 320 of the Code does not relate or effect the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code. The law laid down in B.S.Joshi's Case (Supra) was re-affirmed and followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions pronounced subsequently." 13. He further submits that his case is squarely covered by the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 has laid down the guidelines under which circumstances the Court should, in its inherent power, entertain an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The guidelines are as follows:- "(i) 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. (ii) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR 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. (iii) 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. (iv) Where, the allegations in the FIR 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. (iv) Where, the allegations in the FIR 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. (v) Where the allegations made in the FIR 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. (vi) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (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 Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (vii) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides 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." 14. Counter affidavit filed by Shri Shashi Dhar Pandey, learned AGA on behalf of the State, is taken on record. He submits that prima facie case is made out and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed and summons were issued. The court below had sufficient evidence on record placed by the prosecution and accordingly, the discharge application filed by the applicants had rightly been dismissed. 15. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 16. Prima facie, the landlord/opposite party no. 2 had initiated the proceedings for vacation of the property against the applicants way-back in the year 2006. An FIR was lodged on 15.11.2007, in which, it was alleged that the landlord/opposite party no. 2 had gone to the applicants asking them to vacate the property, on which, they had threatened him. This allegation prima facie does not seems to be true as the vacation proceedings of the house were still continuing. There was no reason for the landlord to go and ask the tenant to vacate the property. 17. The opposite party no. 2 who is the landlord, had challenged the order passed by the High Court by which vacation of the property has been set aside. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had dismissed the special leave petition preferred by the landlord/opposite party no. 17. The opposite party no. 2 who is the landlord, had challenged the order passed by the High Court by which vacation of the property has been set aside. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had dismissed the special leave petition preferred by the landlord/opposite party no. 2 on 11.03.2011. 18. It is evident that the criminal proceedings have been initiated just to put undue pressure on the tenant to vacate the property. It is also brought to the notice that the landlord had been engaging in similar tactics by filing criminal cases against the other similarly situated tenants. Those tenants had preferred an application under Section 482 CrPC which was allowed and the identical criminal proceedings initiated against the other tenant had been quashed. 19. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Chandrapal Singh & Ors. v. Maharaj Singh & Ors (supra) has held as follows :- "A frustrated landlord after having met his Waterloo in the hierarchy of civil courts, has further enmeshed the tenant in a frivolous criminal prosecution which prima facie appears to be an abuse of the process of law. The facts when stated are so telling that the further discussion may appear to be superfluous. The chagrined and frustrated litigants should not be permitted to give vent to their frustration by cheaply invoking jurisdiction of the criminal court. Complainant herein is an Advocate. He lost in both courts in the rent control proceedings and has now rushed to the criminal court. This itself speaks volumes. Add to this the fact that another suit between the parties was pending from 1975. The conclusion is inescapable that invoking the jurisdiction of the criminal court in this background is an abuse of the process of law and the High Court rather glossed over this important fact while declining to exercise its power under Section 482, Cr. P.C." 20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Inder Mohan Goswami & Another v. State Of Uttaranchal & Others, JT 2007 (11) SC 499 has held that : "Courts must ensure that criminal prosecution is not used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking a private vendetta or with an ulterior motive to pressurize the accused." 21. That, in another matter passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of G. Sagar Suri And Anr. v. State Of Up. That, in another matter passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of G. Sagar Suri And Anr. v. State Of Up. And Ors, AIR 2000 SC 754 , it is held as under : "Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code has to be exercised with a great care. In exercise of its jurisdiction High Court is not to examine the matter superficially. It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, Jurisdiction under this Section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice." 22. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Bhajan Lal (supra) has stated that : "inherent power can be exercised to quash the proceedings to prevent the abuse of the process of law and to secure ends of justice. It has been held that where the alleged is not disclosed in the complaint or the F.I.R., frivolous criminal litigation could be quashed." 23. That, the instant matter is a glaring example of pure abuse of process of law. Even the alleged offence is not disclosed in the FIR and prima facie, no case is made out which calls for initiation of criminal proceedings against the applicants. The instant matter is squarely covered under the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal (supra) and hence, the entire criminal proceedings initiated by the opposite party no. 2/landlord ought to be quashed. It will not be wrong to say that the opposite party no. 2 has abused the process of law by filing false and frivolous cases against the applicants. Such kind of activities of filing frivolous cases ought to be discouraged. 24. This court in the matter of State of U.P. & Ors. 2/landlord ought to be quashed. It will not be wrong to say that the opposite party no. 2 has abused the process of law by filing false and frivolous cases against the applicants. Such kind of activities of filing frivolous cases ought to be discouraged. 24. This court in the matter of State of U.P. & Ors. v. Shri Raj Veer Singh (Matter under Article 227 No. 6346/2022) vide judgment dated 16.04.2024 has also upheld that cost should be imposed on frivolous litigation specially when the litigation is pursuit for ulterior motives without any reasonal basis. Relevant para of the same are as under : "46. ...Frivolous litigation undermines this fundamental principle by clogging the courts with baseless claims, thereby delaying the resolution of legitimate disputes. As a result, individuals with valid claims may be forced to endure prolonged legal battles, often at great personal and financial cost, simply because the system is overwhelmed by frivolous cases. 47. Imposition of costs in cases of frivolous litigation is not intended to discourage legitimate claims but rather to deter abuse of the legal system. Courts have discretion to differentiate between cases where parties genuinely believe in the merit of their claims and those where litigation is pursued for ulterior motives or without any reasonable basis. By imposing costs in cases where litigation is found to be frivolous or vexatious, courts strike a balance between deterring abuse and ensuring access to justice for legitimate claimants. 48. Imposition of costs in cases of frivolous litigation is essential to maintain the integrity, efficiency, and fairness of the judicial system. By deterring abuse of the legal process, promoting judicial efficiency, and upholding the principles of fairness and justice, cost imposition serves to safeguard the rights of individuals, protect the integrity of the legal system, and bolster public confidence in the administration of justice. 49. In Vinod Seth v Devinder Bajar and Anr., reported in (2010) 8 SCC 1 (Coram: R.V. Raveendran and R.M. Lodha, JJ.) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the provisions of costs should act as a deterrent to frivolous litigation. Relevant part from the aforesaid judgment is reproduced herein: "48. The provision for costs is intended to achieve the following goals: (a) It should act as a deterrent to vexatious, frivolous and speculative litigations or defences. Relevant part from the aforesaid judgment is reproduced herein: "48. The provision for costs is intended to achieve the following goals: (a) It should act as a deterrent to vexatious, frivolous and speculative litigations or defences. The spectre of being made liable to pay actual costs should be such, as to make every litigant think twice before putting forth a vexatious, frivolous or speculative claim or defence…….." 50. In Ramrameshwari Devi and Ors. v. Nirmala Devi and Ors., reported in (2011) 8 SCC 249 (Coram: Dalveer Bhandari and Deepak Verma, JJ.) the Hon'ble Supreme Court propounded that frivolous litigation has to be controlled and courts have to ensure that that there is no incentive for such litigation. Relevant portion has been extracted below: "43. We have carefully examined the written submissions of the learned amicus curiae and the learned counsel for the parties. We are clearly of the view that unless we ensure that wrongdoers are denied profit or undue benefit from the frivolous litigation, it would be difficult to control frivolous and uncalled for litigations. In order to curb uncalled for and frivolous litigation, the courts have to ensure that there is no incentive or motive for uncalled for litigation. It is a matter of common experience that court's otherwise scarce and valuable time is consumed or more appropriately, wasted in a large number of uncalled for cases." 25. Looking to the facts of this case, it is evident that the opposite party no. 2 has been filing criminal cases against the applicants just to put undue pressure. This was nothing but a pure abuse of process of law. To discourage such kind of activities, it is necessary for the courts to impose an exemplary cost and accordingly, a cost of Rs. 5/- lakhs is imposed on the opposite party no. 2 for filing false and frivolous criminal cases. The money shall be paid to the applicants within twelve weeks from today. 26. Accordingly, the instant application is allowed and all the proceedings initiated in Criminal Case No. 245 of 2007, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 and 448 I.P.C. Police Station- Feelkhana, District-Kanpur Nagar are hereby quashed.