1. Alleged theft of a vehicle and forgery of documents — Complaint filed after significant delay — Proceedings under Sections 468, 471, 406, and 120-B, IPC. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 541
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
AJAY RASTOGI, BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.
Chanchalpati Das - Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Anr. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1592 of 2023 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 6688 of 2017)
With
Madhupandit Das - Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Anr. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1593 of 2023 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 6689 of 2017)
Decided On : 18-05-2023
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Inordinate delay of eight years in filing complaint in court itself would be a sufficient ground to quash proceedings.
Inordinate delay of eight years in filing complaint in court itself would be a sufficient ground to quash proceedings.
Subject
Criminal Law - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings
Act Referred
Headnote
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 468, 471, 406 and 120-B – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Forgery, criminal breach of trust and criminal conspiracy – Both accused claim to be global spiritual leaders and humanitarians – Inordinate delay of eight years in filing complaint in court itself would be a sufficient ground to quash proceedings – Except bald allegations made in complaint with regard to theft of bus in question there was no material or document produced by complainant to substantiate allegations against appellants – Even after investigation of complaint, there was no evidence collected by investigating officer to prima facie satisfy ingredients constituting alleged offences under Sections 468, 471, 406 and 120B of IPC – Even if allegations made in complaint as well as in charge-sheet are taken at their face value none of ingredients constituting alleged offences are culled out – There was no expert opinion obtained or scientific evidence collected on documents allegedly forged to show as to by whom, when and how theft of vehicle and forgery of documents were committed – Under the circumstances, allowing such prosecution to continue would not only be an empty formality but would be gross wastage of court’s precious time – High Courts have power to quash proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice – Allegations made against appellants are so absurd and improbable that no prudent person can ever reach to a conclusion that there is a sufficient ground for proceeding against appellants-accused – Party who initiates and continues a frivolous, irresponsible and senseless litigation or who abuses process of the court must be saddled with exemplary cost, so that others may deter to follow such course – Appeals allowed with cost of Rs.1,00,000/-. (Paras 11, 12, 13, 17, 20 and 22)
Facts of the case:
Both appeals arise out of the common judgment and order dated 22.03.2017 passed by the High Court at Kolkata in CRR No. 1490 of 2013 and CRR. No. 3307 of 2013 whereby the High Court has dismissed both Criminal Revision Applications seeking quashing of charge-sheet filed against appellants-accused, in respect of FIR for offences under Sections 468, 471, 406 and 120-B of IPC.
Findings of Court:
The matter should be viewed more seriously when people who claim themselves and project themselves to be global spiritual leaders, engage themselves into such kind of frivolous litigations and use court proceedings as a platform to settle their personal scores or to nurture their personal ego.
Result : Appeals allowed with costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Advocates appeared:
For the parties : Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kartik Seth, Adv. Mrs. Shriya Gilhotra, Adv. Mr. Tarun Mehra, Adv. Ms. Aakriti Vikas, Adv. For M/S. Chambers Of Kartik Seth, AOR Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Adv. Mr. Kuriakose Varghese, Adv. Mr. V Shyamohan, Adv. Ms. Aishwarya Hariharan, Adv. Mr. Martin George, Adv. Ms. B. Vijayalakshmi Menon, AOR Mr. Soumya Chakraborty, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Adv. Ms. Mantika Haryani, Adv. Mr. Shreyas Awasthi, Adv. Mr. Somipam Mc, Adv. Ms. Muskan Surana, Adv. Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR Mr. Kuriakose Varghese, Adv. Mr. V. Shyamohan, Adv. Ms. Sradhaxna Mudhrika, Adv. Mr. Martin G George, Adv. For M/S. Kmnp Law Aor, AOR
For the parties : Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kartik Seth, Adv. Mrs. Shriya Gilhotra, Adv. Mr. Tarun Mehra, Adv. Ms. Aakriti Vikas, Adv. For M/S. Chambers Of Kartik Seth, AOR Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Adv. Mr. Kuriakose Varghese, Adv. Mr. V Shyamohan, Adv. Ms. Aishwarya Hariharan, Adv. Mr. Martin George, Adv. Ms. B. Vijayalakshmi Menon, AOR Mr. Soumya Chakraborty, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Adv. Ms. Mantika Haryani, Adv. Mr. Shreyas Awasthi, Adv. Mr. Somipam Mc, Adv. Ms. Muskan Surana, Adv. Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR Mr. Kuriakose Varghese, Adv. Mr. V. Shyamohan, Adv. Ms. Sradhaxna Mudhrika, Adv. Mr. Martin G George, Adv. For M/S. Kmnp Law Aor, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Appellants claim malicious prosecution and abuse of process due to delay — Respondent asserts prima facie case and non-compoundable nature of offences. (Para 8 , 9 )
3. Unexplained inordinate delay and lack of prima facie evidence or expert opinion on forgery render the prosecution an abuse of the process of law. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 )
4. Criminal proceedings may be quashed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. if there is unexplained inordinate delay or allegations are absurd and inherently improbable. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 )
5. Criminal proceedings quashed — Exemplary cost imposed on the respondent-complainant. (Para 21 , 22 )
6. Under what circumstances can a High Court quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.?
Proceedings can be quashed to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice, specifically when allegations do not prima facie constitute an offence, are inherently improbable, or are maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 )
7. What is the legal significance of inordinate delay in filing a criminal complaint?
While inordinate delay alone may not always be a ground for quashing, unexplained inordinate delay is a crucial factor that can justify quashing a criminal complaint as it may indicate a misuse of the process of law. (Para 11 , 16 , 17 )
8. How does the absence of substantive evidence in a charge-sheet affect the continuation of a trial?
If the complaint and charge-sheet fail to satisfy the ingredients of the alleged offences and lack cogent evidence or expert opinions on forged documents, continuing the prosecution is considered a gross wastage of judicial time. (Para 12 )
JUDGMENT :
Bela M. Trivedi, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Both the appeals arise out of the common judgment and order dated 22.03.2017 passed by the High Court at Kolkata in CRR No. 1490 of 2013 and CRR. No. 3307 of 2013 whereby the High Court has dismissed both the Criminal Revision Applications seeking quashing of the charge-sheet filed against the appellants-accused, in respect of the FIR no. 33 of 2009 registered at Ballygunge Police Station, for the offences under Sections 468, 471, 406 and 120-B of IPC. As transpiring from the record, the appellant Madhu Pandit Das (accused no.1) is the President of ISKCON, Bengaluru since 1984 and the appellant Chanchalpati Das (accused no. 2) is the Vice President of ISKCON, Bengaluru since 1985. Both of them claim to be the global spiritual leaders and humanitarians. According to the appellants, the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON), Bengaluru, is a society registered in 1978 under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960.
3. As per the case of the respondent-complainant on 30.09.2006, a letter in the form of complaint was addressed to the officer in charge, Ballygunge Police Station, Kolkata, by the General Manager, ISKCON, Kolkata, in which it was alleged inter alia that the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON), Mumbai is a Society registered since 1971 under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, having its registered office at Hare Krishna Land, Juhu, Mumbai-49. The said Society has many branches/offices all over India including one located at 3C, Albert Road, Kolkata-700019. The Governing Council of the said Society known as “Bureau” is the highest administrative body. The said Bureau at the relevant time had entrusted Sri Adridharan Das, who was the President of the said Kolkata Branch, with the management of the assets and properties situated at Kolkata Branch, which included a 42-seat deluxe bus of Ashok Leyland make, model Viking Alpsv 4/37-222 WB passenger bus, bearing registration no. WB25A-0454, engine No. WSH 104189, chassis No. WSH042296. The said bus used to be parked at the premises of Kolkata Branch.
4. It was further alleged that when the new management took over the management of the said branch at Kolkata, the said bus was not found in the premises of the said branch. Therefore, Sri Jagdartiha Das, one of the Managers wrote a letter dated 23rd November, 2001 to the Regional Transport Officer, Barasat, Kolkata not to issue any duplicate registration certificate, tax card etc. in respect of the said bus. It was further stated in the said letter dated 30th September, 2006 that a report was also made to the police station on 22.05.2002, however subsequently they came to know that the said bus was in the illegal custody of Sri Madhu Pandit Das, residing at Hare Krishna HilIs, Rajaji Nagar, Bengaluru, Karnataka. It was also alleged that Mr. Adridharan Das had entered into a criminal conspiracy with Mr. Madhu Pandit Das and others, and that Mr. Adridharan Das had committed theft as well as criminal breach of trust in respect of the said vehicle, which was taken to Bengaluru. It was also alleged that the original registration certificate of the said vehicle was lying at the Kolkata Branch, and that neither Mr. Adridharan Das nor Mr. Madhu Pandit Das or any other person had any authority to get the said vehicle transferred to Bengaluru or to change the name of the registered owner of the said vehicle.
5. It is further case of the respondent-complainant that since the Ballygunge Police Station had not taken notice of the said letter dated 30.09.2006, the complainant Radha Raman Das, the Branch Manager of ISKCON, Kolkata had filed a private complaint in the year 2009 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, against the accused Madhu Pandit Das, Chanchalpati Das, Mahajan Das and Adridharan Das seeking investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The said case was registered as criminal case no. 7
