Krishna Lal Chawla vs State of U. P.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(SC) 133

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, R. Subhash Reddy, JJ.
Krishna Lal Chawla & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 283 of 2021, (arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 6432 of 2020)
Decided On : 08-03-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):Kiran Mahato, Praveen Agrawal, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Sarvesh Singh Baghel, Pawan Shree Agrawal, Shivranjani Ralawata, Ajit Sharma, Advocates

Headnote:
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 142 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 155(2) – Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 323, 325, 504 and 506 – Offence of Voluntarily causing hurt – Criminal intimidation – Charged - Appellants and Respondent No. 2 are neighbours - Genesis of proceedings before lies in a physical altercation that took place between Appellants, and Respondent No. 2 and his wife - While occurrence of such an altercation is an admitted fact between parties, details thereof form crux of this prolonged litigation - Son of Appellant No. 1 also filed information , which was registered as Non-Cognizable Report (NCR) No. with Police Station, alleging offences under Sections 323, 504 and 506, IPC against Respondent No. 2 and his wife - Report counter-alleged that Respondent No. 2 and his wife came to Appellants’ house, beat them up with wooden sticks and iron rods, and threatened to kill their family – Held, Court has used this inherent power to quash criminal proceedings where the proceedings are instituted with an oblique motive, or on manufactured evidence (Monica Kumar (Dr.) & anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 8 SCC 781) - Other decisions have held that inherent powers of High Courts provided in Section 482, CrPC may be utilised to quash criminal proceedings instituted after great delay, or with vengeful or malafide motives - Thus, it is the constitutional duty of this Court to quash criminal proceedings that were instituted by misleading court and abusing its processes of law, only with a view to harass the hapless litigants - In this Court’s quest for complete justice, and to bring peace between parties, who are fighting various litigations since 2006, Court exercise our powers under Article 142 to quash all litigations between parties arising out of this incident - Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

JUDGMENT :

Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises out of final order and judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (hereinafter, ‘High Court’) dated 28.09.2020, dismissing the Miscellaneous Petition No. 2561 of 2020 filed by Appellants herein praying for quashing of the following orders :

(ii) Order dated 13.01.2020 of the Ld. Additional District and Sessions Judge, Meerut (hereinafter, ‘Sessions Judge’) in Criminal Revision No.202/2019, dismissing the Appellants’ revision application against the aforesaid summoning order.

3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are as follows :

3.1 The Appellants and Respondent No. 2 are neighbours. The genesis of the proceedings before us lies in a physical altercation that took place between the Appellants, and the Respondent No. 2 and his wife on 5.08.2012. While the occurrence of such an altercation is an admitted fact between the parties, the details thereof form the crux of this prolonged litigation.

3.2 On 5.08.2012, the Respondent No. 2 filed a Non-Cognizable Report (NCR) No. 158/2012 against the Appellants alleging offences under Sections 323, 504 and 506, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, ‘IPC’). It was his case that the Appellants came to his house, beat him and his wife with iron rods, and threatened to kill them.

3.3 The son of Appellant No. 1 also filed information on 5.08.2012, which was registered as Non-Cognizable Report (NCR) No. 160/2012 with the Daurala Police Station, alleging offences under Sections 323, 504 and 506, IPC against the Respondent No. 2 and his wife. This Report counter-alleged that the Respondent No. 2 and his wife came to the Appellants’ house, beat them up with wooden sticks and iron rods, and threatened to kill their family.

3.4 It seems that even prior to the alleged occurrences, there were disputes between the parties in 2006. A mutual settlement took place on 6.02.2006 by which Respondent No. 2 agreed to pay a penalty of Rs. 3,000/- to the Appellant No. 1. Subsequently, in another dispute, on 21.12.2013 the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,500/- on Appellant No. 4. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the parties have been at loggerheads from 2006 onwards. It appears that they have been fighting litigations on one pretext or the other since 2006. Though they were agriculturists and neighbours, peace did not prevail between them, which resulted in a number of cases being lodged by them against each other.

3.5 The Appellants filed an application under Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, ‘CrPC’) before the Magistrate on 27.04.2017, almost 5 years after the alleged incident, seeking permission for the police to investigate NCR No. 160/2012. The learned Magistrate directed that NCR No. 160/2012 filed by the Appellants be registered as FIR in Crime No. 283/2017. Investigation was conducted, and on 17.09.2017 a charge sheet was filed against the Respondent No. 2 and his wife under Sections 323, 325, 504 and 506 of the IPC. Subsequently, the Magistrate framed charges against Respondent No. 2 and his wife. There is nothing on record to show that even a single witness has been examined till date, though charges were framed by the Magistrate long back. Thus, there has been considerable delay in these proceedings, during both the investigation and trial stages.

3.6 Being unsatisfied with the allegations made and charge sheet filed against him, the Respondent No. 2 instituted a fresh private complaint against the Appellants under Section 200 of CrPC in Complaint Case No. 2943 of 2018 in respect of the very incident that took place on 5.08.2012. This private complaint was filed only on 11.05.2018, that is about six years from the date of alleged incident. In the private complaint, not only