Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1798 (ALL)

Prem Nath Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh

2024-08-02

SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY

body2024
JUDGMENT : SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J. 1. In present case, it is not in dispute that in regard to alleged occurrence took place on 13.03.2021, rival NCR were lodged. 2. It is further not in dispute that in cross NCR filed by applicants, after investigation, since it was found that a cognizable offence took place, therefore, a charge sheet was filed under Sections 323, 325, 504 IPC wherein cognizance was taken and opposite party no. 2 and others were summoned. 3. It is further not in dispute that in the NCR filed by complainant herein, a charge sheet was filed only under Sections 323, 504 IPC on 18.03.2021 whereon vide order dated 03.04.2023, in terms of Section 2(d) Cr.P.C., the charge sheet was considered to be a complaint case and present applicants were summoned and that order was not challenged at the instance of either party. 4. After filing of charge sheet as referred above for non-cognizable offence, complainant being felt aggrieved that no charge sheet was filed under Section 452 and 506 IPC i.e. cognizable offence, filed a criminal complaint on 01.10.2022 for same occurrence allegedly occurred on 13.03.2021. In the application, he has disclosed about NCR and for reference, relevant paragraph is mentioned below: 5. Aforesaid complaint was considered as a complaint case. Trial Court after considering statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. summoned present applicants by impugned order dated 26.04.2024 under Sections 323, 452, 504, 506 IPC. For reference, said order in its entirety is quoted below: 6. Sri Deepak Upadhyay, learned counsel for applicants has heavily placed reliance on Krishna Lal Chawla and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2021) 5 SCC 435 that on similar set of facts as well as on similar set of allegations, proceedings arising out of police report as well as proceedings of complaint case could not proceed together if they are instituting by misleading the Court and abusing its process of law only with a view to harass the helpless litigants and relevant paragraphs thereof are quoted below: “23. As aforesaid, the trial courts and the Magistrates have an important role in curbing this injustice. They are the first lines of defence for both the integrity of the criminal justice system, and the harassed and distraught litigant. As aforesaid, the trial courts and the Magistrates have an important role in curbing this injustice. They are the first lines of defence for both the integrity of the criminal justice system, and the harassed and distraught litigant. We are of the considered opinion that the trial courts have the power to not merely decide on acquittal or conviction of the accused person after the trial, but also the duty to nip frivolous litigations in the bud even before they reach the stage of trial by discharging the accused in fit cases. This would not only save judicial time that comes at the cost of public money, but would also protect the right to liberty that every person is entitled to under Article 21 of the Constitution. In this context, the trial Judges have as much, if not more, responsibility in safeguarding the fundamental rights of the citizens of India as the highest court of this land. 24. As recorded by us above, the present controversy poses a typical example of frivolous litigants abusing court process to achieve their mischievous ends. In the case before us, the Magistrate was aware of the significant delay in the filing of private complaint by Respondent 2, and of the material improvements from the earlier NCR No. 158 of 2012 which were made in the private complaint. It was incumbent on the Magistrate to examine any possibility of abuse of process of the court, make further enquiries, and dismiss the frivolous complaint at the outset after judicial application of mind. 25. However, this was not done - the Magistrate issued process against the appellants by order dated 4-4-2019, and this controversy has now reached this Court for disposal. 26. 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. 27. 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. 27. 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 [State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, (2014) 8 SCC 883 : (2014) 4 SCC (Civ) 657 : (2014) 6 SCC (Cri) 154 : (2014) 3 SCC (L&S) 134]. This Court has used this inherent power to quash criminal proceedings where the proceedings are instituted with an oblique motive, or on manufactured evidence [Monica Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2008) 8 SCC 781 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 649]. Other decisions have held that inherent powers of High Courts provided in Section 482 CrPC may be utilised to quash criminal proceedings instituted after great delay, or with vengeful or mala fide motives. [Sirajul v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015) 9 SCC 201 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 749, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 : AIR 1992 SC 604 ]. Thus, it is the constitutional duty of this Court to quash criminal proceedings that were instituted by misleading the court and abusing its processes of law, only with a view to harass the hapless litigants. 28. In this Court's quest for complete justice, and to bring peace between the parties, who are fighting various litigations since 2006, we exercise our powers under Article 142 to quash all the litigations between the parties arising out of this incident.” 7. Sri Vijay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party-2 has not able to dispute above referred legal position, however, he has submitted that in case any proceeding has to be quashed that criminal proceeding arising out of a charge sheet, since Magistrate has, after considering statements recorded u/s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., to summon the applicants under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 452 IPC. Otherwise, Magistrate could follow procedure prescribed under Section 210 Cr.P.C. i.e. procedure to follow when there is a complaint case and police investigation in respect of the same offence. 8. Otherwise, Magistrate could follow procedure prescribed under Section 210 Cr.P.C. i.e. procedure to follow when there is a complaint case and police investigation in respect of the same offence. 8. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. 9. It is not much in dispute that on basis of alleged occurrence, complainant has first filed an NCR wherein after investigation, charge sheet was filed for non-cognizable offence and trial Court considered it to be a complaint case under Section 2(d) Cr.P.C. and summons were issued to applicants for offence u/s 323 and 504 IPC. 10. After charge sheet was filed and before summons were issued, complainant has filed a criminal complaint disclosing facts of NCR that applicants have committed cognizable offence and trial Court vide impugned order, after considering statement u/s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. has summoned the applicants for offence u/s 323, 504, 506 and 452 IPC. 11. Court takes note of Krishna Lal Chawla (supra) that multiple proceedings on same set of facts could not be proceeded further and it could be quashed if they are attended with malafide and initiated only to harass accused persons. 12. In present case, there is no argument on behalf of learned counsel for applicants that impugned passed u/s 204 Cr.P.C. itself is illegal as no requisite reason was assigned that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against applicants as well as that it was not based on material available on record i.e. complaint, statement recorded u/s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. Relevant part of impugned order has already been quoted in preceding paragraph. 13. In the present case, complainant has specifically stated about lodging of NCR in the complaint and essentially it was reason to file complaint since no FIR was lodged. The applicants have not brought on record before trial Court about factum of filing charge sheet for non-cognizable offence in pursuance of NCR and that it was treated as a complaint case under Section 2(d) Cr.P.C. The conduct of complainant was bonafide and has no malice as he has come up with clean hands. 14. Legal error committed by trial Court is that despite being aware that an NCR was already lodged. 14. Legal error committed by trial Court is that despite being aware that an NCR was already lodged. No police report was summoned to ascertain outcome of NCR and facts thereof only on ground that on some set of allegations, both NCR/FIR and criminal complaint was filed, itself would not be a malafide approach rather the Court has to look into attending circumstances to ascertain whether it was a creature of malafide which is not evident in present case. 15. In aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that above referred impugned order becomes illegal and accordingly, impugned order dated 26.04.2024 passed in Case No. 105/2022 (Ajay vs. Prem Nath and Others) u/s 323, 504, 506, 452 IPC, Police Station- Zafrabad, District- Jaunpur, pending before ACJM-II, Jaunpur is set aside and matter is remitted back to concerned trial Court to pass a fresh order after taking note of factum about charge sheet filed in NCR lodged by complainant on non-cognizable offence and order passed under Section 2(d) Cr.P.C. as well as while passing fresh order, concerned Court would also take note of Krishna Lal Chawla (supra) after hearing the complainant. 16. Application stands disposed of with above observations. 17. Registrar (Compliance) to take steps.