The main legal point established in the judgment is that criminal proceedings can be quashed if they are manifestly attended with mala fide and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused. The judgment also emphasizes the right to speedy trial as an integral part of the fundamental right to life and liberty.

JUDGMENT :

1. Applicants are facing trial arising out of First Information Report dated 17.07.1999, being Case Crime No. 438 of 1999 for allegedly committing offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 IPC. After investigation charge sheet was filed on 18.11.2000 and cognizance was also taken. The applicants filed an application for discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. on 23.12.2021 which has been rejected by means of impugned order dated 09.03.2022.

2. Facts of the present case are that an election of Society, namely, “All India Muslim and Rehabilitation Education Society, Aligarh” was conducted on 15.03.1998 and applicants and others were declared office bearers of Society and Opposite Party No. 2 and others were defeated.

3. Dispute arose between elected and defeated office bearers of Society which led to filing a civil suit by applicants on 03.11.1998 against Opposite Party No. 2/ Complainant for permanent prohibitory injunction against Opposite Party No. 2 and its agents, servants, friends and associates, to restrain them for interfering in the functioning and management of plaintiffs (applicants herein). Opposite Party No. 2 (defendant in suit) initially not appeared in suit proceedings and approached the Magistrate by way of filing application dated 17.07.1999 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and on the basis of direction passed by Magistrate concerned, First Information Report, referred above, was lodged alleging that applicants have committed forgery and cheating and a fraudulent election was conducted wherein presence of some of members was wrongly shown and even the signatures of members were forged. Investigation commenced and meanwhile in the suit proceedings by order dated 06.11.1998 an ex parte interim injunction was granted restraining Opposite Party No. 2 (defendant in suit) in the working of Society. Suit is still pending and presently it is at the stage of recording of evidence and defendants therein have also appeared. Meanwhile, investigation remained pending for one or another reason and finally charge sheet dated 18.11.2000 was filed against applicants for above referred offences. It appears that trial could not proceed due to one or other reason and finally the discharge application dated 23.12.2021 was filed, which was rejected by means of impugned order dated 09.03.20022.

4. Sri Pradeep Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for applicants, submitted that the election of Society was fairly conducted by Election Officer and list of elected members was duly submitted to the office of Registrar of Societies. Opposite Party No. 2/Complainant has not filed any objection before Registrar of Societies to the process of election or result thereof. There was interference from the side of Opposite Party No. 2 in the day-to-day working of Society, therefore, applicants have filed civil suit wherein interim injunction was granted in their favour restraining Opposite Party No. 2/Complaint/Defendant therein, from any interference in the day-to-day working of Society. Opposite Party No. 2/Complaint/ Defendant has not appeared in civil suit for many years and for one or other reason the suit is not decided due to their non-cooperation. Learned counsel further submits that in order to give criminal colour to civil proceedings belated application was filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 17.07.1999, i.e., after a period of more than 15 months making baseless allegations of cheating and forgery. The criminal proceedings were initiated only to harass the applicants with ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on applicants with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. Since on a similar issue a civil suit is pending, therefore, criminal proceedings initiated on a belated application is an abuse of process of law. Learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment passed by Supreme Court in Babu Venkatesh and others vs. State of Karnataka and another, (2022) 5 SCC 639 and paras 20 and 21 thereof are reproduced as under:

“20. It