Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(SC) 537

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Indira Banerjee, A.S. Bopanna, JJ.
Ramveer Upadhyay & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. – Respondents
Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 2953 of 2022
Decided on : 20-04-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant :Ranjit Kumar, Rajeev Sharma, Prashant Sharma, Raghuvir Sharma, Vipin Kumar Sharma, Dharmendra Sharma, Diksha Sharma, Akhilesh Mishra, Advocates
For the Respondent:Siddarth Dave, Swetashwa Agarwal, Sanchit Garga, Nikunj Jain, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Criminal prosecution, if otherwise justified and based upon adequate evidence, does not become vitiated on account of mala fides or political vendetta of first informant or complainant.
(2) Criminal proceedings cannot be nipped in bud only because complaint has been lodged by a political rival – Whether allegations are true or untrue, would have to be decided in trial.

Headnote:
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Quashing of criminal proceedings – High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, would not ordinarily embark upon enquiry into whether evidence is reliable or not or whether there is reasonable possibility that accusation would not be sustained – In exceptional cases, to prevent abuse of process of Court, High Court might in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 quash criminal proceedings – However, interference would only be justified when complaint did not disclose any offence, or was patently frivolous, vexatious or oppressive – Criminal prosecution, if otherwise justified and based upon adequate evidence, does not become vitiated on account of mala fides or political vendetta of first informant or complainant. (Paras 27, 29, 30 and 32)
(B) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 – Section 3(1)(Dha) and second proviso to Section 14 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 365 read with Section 511 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Attempt to kidnap – Cognizance of complaint – Political rivalry between parties – Allegations in complaint case make out an offence under Section 3 of Atrocities Act – Possibility of retaliation on part of Petitioners by acts alleged in complaint, after closure of earlier complaint cannot be ruled out – Quashing of criminal proceedings at very inception might result in injustice – Ends of justice would be better served if valuable time of Court is spent on hearing appeals rather than entertaining petitions under Section 482 at an interlocutory stage which might ultimately result in miscarriage of justice – Criminal proceedings cannot be nipped in bud only because complaint has been lodged by a political rival – Whether allegations are true or untrue, would have to be decided in trial – In exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., Court does not examine correctness of allegations in a complaint except in exceptionally rare cases where it is patently clear that allegations are frivolous or do not disclose any offence – High Court rightly dismissed application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. – Special Leave Petition dismissed. (Paras 24, 25, 38, 39 and 40)
Facts of the case:
Present special leave petition is against a final judgment and order dated 7th March 2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, dismissing the application filed by the Petitioner under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 being case No.29704 of 2021, whereby Petitioner had challenged the order dated 17th September 2021 passed by 4th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hathras taking cognizance of complaint filed by the Respondent No.2 under Section 365 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 3(1)(Dha) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989.
Findings of Court:
Documents have been brought on record by the Petitioners which show that the Petitioner No.1 is a patient of lung cancer of an advanced stage. He is on strong medication. Considering the condition of the health of the Petitioner No.1, the Trial Court may consider exempting the personal appearance of the Petitioner No.1, if such an application is made to Trial Court.
Result : Special Leave Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Indira Banerjee, J.

This special leave petition is against a final judgment and order dated 7th March 2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, dismissing the application filed by the Petitioner under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 being case No. 29704 of 2021, whereby the Petitioner had challenged the order dated 17th September 2021 passed by the 4th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hathras taking cognizance of the complaint filed by the Respondent No. 2 under Section 365 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 3(1)(Dha) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989, hereinafter referred to as "the Atrocities Act".

2. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioners opened his arguments contending that this case is a classic example of malicious prosecution of the petitioners, who have been embroiled in a false criminal case, due to political animosity. The complaint in the Court of the 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge under the Atrocities Act, under section 156 (3) of the CrPC , which has given rise to these proceedings, has been filed by the Respondent No. 2 at the instance of Devendra Agarwal, Ex-MLA , a political opponent of the Petitioner No. 1. The Petitioner No. 1 and the said Devendra Aggarwal had fought elections against each other several times.

3. Earlier, on or about 1st January 2010, Smt. Meera Devi, wife of the Respondent No. 2 had filed a complaint before the District Magistrate, Mahamaya Nagar District (now Hathras District) stating that the Respondent No.2 had been abducted by the brothers of the Petitioner No. 1, to forcibly make him vote in favour of their party, in the MLC election of 2010. In the said complaint it was alleged that the Petitioner had abused the Respondent No. 2 by his caste, using filthy language.

4. On the same day, that is, 1st January 2010, Devendra Aggarwal wrote a letter to the District Magistrate for release of the Respondent No. 2. In the aforesaid letter, it was stated that the Petitioners had abused the Respondent No. 2 in filthy language by reference to his caste.

5. On 2nd January 2010, Meera Devi filed an application in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Sadabad, Hathras under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C ), being Complaint No. 412 of 2010 for directions on the Station House Officer (SHO) at Chandappa Police Station to register her Complaint of abduction of her husband.

6. A complaint was thereafter registered, pursuant to which Crime Case No. 17/2010 was started. The case was investigated by the Circle Inspector Sadabad, Hathras. After investigation, the Police filed a final report of closure of the case, opining that no incident of abduction, as alleged had taken place, and the complaint had been filed out of political animosity.

7. Meera Devi filed a Protest Petition which was dismissed. The High Court did not interfere with the order of dismissal of her Protest Petition. Meera Devi approached this Court. Pursuant to the orders of this court, further investigation was held by the CB CID. The Investigating Officer filed a final report dated 17.10.2018 in favour of the Petitioners. Meera Devi filed a Protest Petition. By an order dated 5th September 2020, the Special Judge under the Atrocities Act, Hathras rejected the Protest Petition filed by Meera Devi in Case No. 17/2010.

8. In February 2017, the Petitioner had contested the Assembly elections from Sadabad Constituency. Mr. Devendra Aggarwal also contested the election from the same constituency as a candidate of a rival political party. It is alleged that, on 8th February 2017, when the Petitioner No 1's son was campaigning for the Petitioner No 1, Devendra Aggarwal, who was then a sitting MLA of the ruling party, attacked the Petitioner No 1's son and his supporters and opened fire indiscriminately.

9. One Pushpendra Singh, a supporter of the