Back
2021 Supreme(J&K) 685
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH
Rajnesh Oswal, J.
Ankush Gupta - Petitioner
Versus
Joginder Paul Singh – Respondent
CRMC No. 329/2017
Decided On : 29-10-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Navyug Sethi
For the Respondent: Raghubir Singh
IMPORTANT POINT
The initiation of criminal proceedings must be based on substantiated allegations and evidence; the misuse of the legal process for harassment is impermissible.
Headnote:
ABUSE OF PROCESS - CRIMINAL COMPLAINT QUASHING - Sections 323, 504, 506 RPC, Section 561-A Cr.P.C. (now 482 Cr.P.C.) - The court discussed the provisions of Sections 323, 504, and 506 of the RPC, which pertain to assault and criminal intimidation, and emphasized the necessity for a thorough examination of the allegations before issuing process against an accused. The court highlighted the importance of the magistrate's duty to scrutinize the evidence and ensure that the complaint is not a tool for harassment. The interpretation of these sections influenced the court's decision to quash the complaint, as it found the allegations to be vague and lacking substantiation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a bank manager, sought to quash a criminal complaint filed against him by the respondent, who was a guarantor for a loan taken by his brother. The complaint alleged that the petitioner had assaulted and threatened the respondent when he sought a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for the loan, which had not been repaid. The petitioner contended that the complaint was false and aimed at pressuring the bank to settle the loan.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations in the complaint were vague and lacked evidence, particularly regarding the claim that the respondent had made a one-time settlement payment. The court noted that the respondent failed to provide any proof of payment and that the loan remained unpaid. It concluded that the complaint was filed with an ulterior motive to harass the petitioner.
Issues: Whether the allegations in the complaint were sufficient to constitute the offences under Sections 323, 504, and 506 RPC, and whether the criminal proceedings constituted an abuse of process of law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that the magistrate must carefully evaluate the allegations and evidence before summoning an accused. It emphasized that criminal law should not be set in motion lightly and that complaints should not be used as a means of harassment against individuals performing their official duties.
Final Decision: The court quashed the criminal complaint and the order issuing process against the petitioner, finding that the proceedings were initiated with an ulterior motive and constituted an abuse of process of law.
JUDGMENT :
Rajnesh Oswal, J.
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under section 561-A Cr.P.C. (now 482 Cr.P.C.) for quashing the criminal complaint, titled, Joginder Paul Singh vs. Ankush Gupta for commission of offences under sections 323, 504, 506 RPC pending before the Court of Sub-Judge (JMIC), Nowshera (hereinafter to be referred as the trial court) as also the order dated 17.05.2016 passed by the trial court by virtue of which process has been issued against the petitioner.
2. It is contended in the petition that the petitioner in the year 2016 was serving as a Branch Manager, Grameen Bank, Nowshera and brother of the respondent No. 1 had taken loan of Rs. 6.75 lac for purchase of a Tempo Traveler vehicle on 30.05.2013. The respondent stood as a guarantor to the said loan. The brother of the respondent did not liquidate the said loan as a consequence of which, the said loan account was declared as N.P.A. As per the records of the Bank, the total outstanding loan against the borrower as on 31.03.2017 stood at Rs. 2,75,089/-. It is further stated that the respondent in order to pressurize the Bank officials to settle the loan amount by waiving of the balance outstanding devised a novel method and in this behalf, he filed a totally false and frivolous complaint against the petitioner on 17.05.2016 before the trial court and learned trial court after recording the statements of respondent/complainant and his wife, issued the process against the petitioner vide order dated 17.05.2016.
3. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the criminal proceedings arising out of the abovementioned complaint including the order dated 17.05.2016 by virtue of which process was issued against the petitioner on the following grounds:-
(a) That the allegations leveled in the complaint are vague and the learned trial court without evaluating the allegations has issued the process against the petitioner in a routine manner.
(b) That the respondent has not given any details as to how much money as one time settlement was deposited by him on behalf of his brother and on which date the said amount was deposited in the Bank. More so, there was no request made either by the complainant or by the borrower to the Jammu and Kashmir Grameen Bank for one time settlement with regard to the liquidation of the entire loan account with interest.
(c) That in order to wriggle out of his responsibility and liability to repay the loan amount, the respondent has concocted the entire story of beating and threatening by the petitioner just to build a pressure upon the petitioner and the Bank officials to succumb to his illegal pressure of settling the unpaid loan and interest. Rather on 10.05.2016, the respondent alone visited the Bank and threatened the petitioner that if he did not issue the NOC in favour of his brother in lieu of waiving of the loan and interest outstanding against his brother, he will get the petitioner involved in the criminal case.
(d) That had any such incident as has been alleged in the complaint taken place on 10.05.2016, then the petitioner would have reported the matter to the higher officers of the petitioner or to the Police.
(e) That from the perusal of the impugned complaint, it reveals that the ingredients of section 323, 504, 506 are missing and the complaint is being used as a tool for causing harassment and victimization to the petitioner, as such, the criminal complaint and process issued against the petitioner is abuse of process of law.
4. Mr. Navyug Sethi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner are nothing but abuse of process of law and the sole motive was to harass the petitioner so as to force him to issue NOC for the loan account of the brother of the respondent.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Raghubir Singh, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that all the essentials of offences for which the process has been issued by the learned
