Back
2025 Supreme(SC) 1702
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MANOJ MISRA, UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.
Sabavath Neelavathy – Appellant
VERSUS
Nomula Ashok Kumar Goud & Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 3101 of 2025 [@SLP (Crl.) No. 3802 of 2024] With Criminal Appeal No. 3102 of 2025 [@SLP (Crl.) No. 17365 of 2024]
Decided On : 2-07-2025
For the Petitioner(s): Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, AOR Mr. K Sai Teja, Adv. Mr. Rizwan Ahmad, AOR Mr. Himanshu Gupta, Adv. Mr. Amir Kaleem, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. S.Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv. Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, AOR Mrs. K.Radha, Adv. Mr. K.Maruthi, Adv. Mr. V.Ranga Reddy, Adv. Mr. K Sai Teja, Adv. Mr. Rizwan Ahmad, AOR Mr. Mohd Tauheed, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Adv. Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR Mr. Yatharth Kansal, Adv. Mr. M. Srikanth Varma, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINT
In matters where civil proceedings are pending inter se parties, Court should be circumspect in accepting allegations – High Court should not have hesitate in putting quietus to frivolous complaints.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 420 and 506 – Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Section 3(1)(iv)(v)(x) – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Cheating and criminal intimidation – Summoning order – In matters where civil proceedings are pending inter se parties, Court should be circumspect in accepting allegations – Parties were in a civil litigation with each other qua sale deed executed by complainant’s husband – There is no allegation in complaint that filthy language was used with a view to humiliate complainant and with an understanding that complainant is a member of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community – There is no injury report to lend credence to any such – High Court should not have hesitated in putting quietus to frivolous complaint – This is a case where proceedings ought to have been nipped in bud by High Court, particularly when High Court was made aware of fact that matter was thoroughly investigated and investigating agency found no substance in complaint – Order passed by High Court to the extent it permits Magistrate to pass a fresh cognizance order, hereby set aside – Complaint proceedings impugned before High Court quashed – Appeal allowed. (Paras 12, 13 and 14)
Facts of the case:
Complainant as well as the accused are both aggrieved by the High Court’s order and have separately challenged the same. The complainant’s case is that the order passed by the learned Magistrate cannot be termed a non-speaking order rather it sufficiently complies with the requirement of law therefore there was no justification for the High Court to quash the same on ground of it being a non-speaking order.
Findings of Court:
There is no injury report to lend credence to any such incidence as alleged and there are civil proceedings pending inter se the parties. In such circumstances, the High Court should not have hesitated in putting a quietus to the frivolous complaint, particularly when the investigating agency did not find any merit in the allegations made therein.
Result : Appeal partly allowed.
What is the correct approach when there are pending civil proceedings inter se between the parties regarding an alleged offence under IPC and the SC/ST Act?
What are the grounds and standards for quashing a criminal complaint or disallowing a summoning order when the court finds the complaint to be non-substantial or frivolous in the context of civil disputes between the parties?
What is the scope of the High Court’s inherent powers to prevent abuse of process and quash proceedings when an independent investigation finds no substance in the allegations?
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. These two appeals arise from a common order dated 04.01.2024 passed by the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in Criminal Petition No.7415 of 2019.
4. A first information report (for short FIR) was lodged by Sabavath Neelavathy (i.e., appellant in the main appeal). After investigation, the police submitted a closure report concluding therein that inter se parties a civil litigation is pending in court and allegations are not substantiated. Aggrieved by the same, Sabavath Neelavathy filed a protest petition. The protest petition was taken up as a complaint and, after following the complaint case procedure, on 13.12.2017, the learned magistrate passed the following order:
“Considering the complaint filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C and the statements of LWs.1 to 4 recorded before this Court, this Court came to conclusion that a prima facie has been made out for the offences U/Sec. 420, 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(iv)(v)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. The caste certificates of complaint and accused were filed by the police along with final report in Cr.No.219 of 2015 of P.S. Yacharam.
Upon perusal of the above documents cognizance has been taken against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences U/Sec. 420, 506 of IPC and Sec. 3(1)(iv)(v)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. Issue summons to accused. Call on 18.01.2018 for their appearance. The complainant is directed to furnish the documents i.e., complaint and other documents to the accused”.
5. Aggrieved by the order dated 13.12.2017 Criminal Petition No.7415 of 2019 was filed by the accused who were summoned thereunder.
6. The High Court found the summoning order to be a non-speaking order, not reflecting application of mind, and, consequently, set aside the said order. While setting aside the said order, the High Court observed that its order will not preclude the learned Magistrate from taking cognizance by giving reasons.
7. The complainant as well as the accused are both aggrieved by the High Court’s order and have separately challenged the same. The complainant’s case is that the order passed by the learned Magistrate cannot be termed a non-speaking order rather it sufficiently complies with the requirement of law therefore there was no justification for the High Court to quash the same on ground of it being a non-speaking order.
8. The accused party has challenged the said order on the ground that quashing of the complaint was sought inter alia on the ground that it did not disclose commission of any offence and the proven facts indicated that it was mala fide made with a view to spite the accused who were in civil litigation with the complainant and, therefore, when, after investigation, the police had submitted a closure report, the continuance of the proceedings would amount to the abuse of the process of the court.
9. It is alleged in the complaint that on 15.09.2015 while the complainant along with her husband were working in their agricultural fields, the accused along with five unknown persons came and told the complainant that they had purchased a portion of the land in the above survey numbers; when the complainant informed them that she has already instituted a suit for partition against her husband and his brothers before the civil court, which is pending, the accused abused the complainant and her husband by using filthy language.
10. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that accused have been implicated with a mala fide intention by taking aid of the provisions of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC & ST Act, 1989) apart from Sections 420 and 506 IPC. It is contended that there is nothing in the complaint to indicate that the accused had abused the complainant party being aware of their caste and with an intent to humiliate them. It has also been submitted that in the civil litigation the sale deed executed in favour of the accused by the husband of
