IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings when they are manifestly attended with mala fides and instituted with ulterior motives for wreaking vengeance.

ORDER :

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed underSection 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure A-1 FIR and Annexure A-2 Final Report in CrimeNo.256/2019 of Kattappana Police Station. The petitioner is the accused in the above crime.

2. In this matter, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b) and 506 of theIndian Penal Code.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, thelearned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for thedefacto complainant. Perused the relevant documents in detail.

4. In this case, based on the First Information Statement (FIS) given by one Vijayakumari Jayakumar, who is the 3rd respondent, First Information Report (FIR) was registered alleging commission of the above offences.

5. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the defacto complainant in the present case is the 3rd accused in S.T. No.111/2016 on the files of Grama Nyayalaya Court, Kattappana arising out of Crime No. 09/2014 of Kattappana Police Station. As per Annexure A3 judgment dated31.05.2019, accused Nos.1 to 5 were found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 447, 427 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly, they were convicted and sentenced. It is also submitted that this case was foisted without any substance after completion of trial in S.T.No.111/2016, anticipating conviction of all the accused therein, including the 3rd accused, who is the defacto complainant herein. Thus, case was falsely registered without any iota of truth and the same would require quashment, is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer for quashment, since the FIS would suggest materials to see commission of the offences alleged, prima facie.

7. I have perused the FIS given on 05.04.2019. The specific allegation is that the accused abused and threatened the defacto complainant, but no serious overt acts stated in theFIS. It is to be noted that in S.T. No.111/2016, which ended in conviction of the defacto complainant herein along with other accused was rendered on 31.05.2019 and before that, evidence was recorded in the said case where the father and relatives of the petitioner given evidence supporting the prosecution, which ended in punishing all the accused, including the defacto complainant herein. That apart, a civil suit also has been filed by the father of the petitioner as O.S. No.105/2014. The 3rd respondent defacto complainant was the 7th defendant in the said suit. The said suit was decreed in favour of petitioner's father.

8. In the decision in Vineet Kumar & Ors. v. State of U.P & anr., reported in [2017 KHC 6274 : AIR 2017 SC 1884 : 2017 (13) SCC 369], the Apex Court held in paragraph 39 thatinherent power given to the High Court under Section 482 Crl.M.C. No.6063 of 2019 Cr.P.C is with the purpose and object of advancement of justice.In case solemn process of Court is sought to be abused by a person with some oblique motive, the Court has to thwart the attempt at the very threshold. The Court cannot permit a prosecution to go on if the case falls in one of the Categories asillustratively enumerated by this Court in [AIR 1960 SC 866], State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal. Judicial process is a solemn proceeding which cannot be allowed to be converted into an instrument of operation or harassment. When there are material to indicate that a criminal proceeding which cannot be allowed to be converted into an instrument of operation or harassment. When there are material to indicate that a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive, the High Court will not hesitate in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceeding under Category 7 as enumerated in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (supra), which is to the following effect:

“(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manif