SHRI BABASAHEB N KALYANI vs SHRI S RAJENDRAN
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 04 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4657 OF 2025
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 7439 OF 2020 (GM-RES)
IN CRL.P No. 4657/2025
BETWEEN:
1.
SHRI BABASAHEB N. KALYANI
S/O NEELAKANTHA KALYANI
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
M/S.NANDHI INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR
ENTERPRISES (NICE)
NO.1, MIDFORD HOUSE GARDEN
OFF M.G.ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. SHRI ASHOK KHENY
S/O MAHARUDRAPPA KHENY
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
M/S. NANDHI INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR
ENTERPRISES (NICE)
NO.1, MIDFORD HOUSE GARDEN
OFF M.G.ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
Digitally signed by
PADMAVATHI B K
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
- 2 -
3. SHRI D.RAVISANKAR
S/O VEERAYYA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
TH
NO.D-602, 4 FLOOR
PRESTIGE ST.JOHNS WOOD APARTMENTS
TAVAREKERE MAIN ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 009.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI PRABHULING K.NAVADGI, SR.ADVOCATE FOR
SRI S.B.MATHAPATI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SHRI S.RAJENDRAN
S/O LATE SELVARAJ
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
ND
NO.941/C, 2 BLOCK
TH TH
4 STAGE, 17 B MAIN ROAD
BTM LAYOUT
BENGALURU - 560 076.
2. SHRI S.MEGANATHAN
S/O LATE SELVARAJ
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
ND
NO.941/C, 2 BLOCK
TH TH
4 STAGE, 17 B MAIN ROAD
BTM LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 076.
3. SHRI S.SAMPATH
S/O LATE SELVARAJ
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
ST
NO. 615, 1 FLOOR
TH TH
7 MAIN, 4 CROSS
- 3 -
VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 040.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PRABHUGOUD B.TUMBIGI, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 528 OF
BNSS PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT BEARING
P.C.R.NO.36/2018 DATED 16.07.2018 FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER PROVISIONS OF KARNATAKA SCHEDULE
CASTE AND SCHEDULE TRIBE (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT,
PENDING IN THE FILE OF LXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE (CCH-71) BENGALURU AT ANNEXURE-
A AND TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.02.2025 IN PCR
NO.36/2018 PASSED BY THE LXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE (CCH-71) BENGALURU REFERRING
THE MATTER TO THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE U/S. 156(3) OF
CR.P.C TO TAKE NECESSARY ACTION AS AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AT ANNEXURE-B.
IN WP NO. 7439/2020
BETWEEN:
1. BABASAHEB N KALYANI
S/O NEELAKANTHA KALYANI
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
M/S. NANDI INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR
ENTERPRISE LIMITED
NO.1, MIDFORD HOUSE
MIDFORD GARDENS
OFF M.G.ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. SRI ASHOK KHENY
S/O MAHARUDRAPPA KHENY
- 4 -
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
MANAGING DIRECTOR
M/S. NANDI INFRASTUCTURE CORRIDOR
ENTERPRISE LIMITED
NO.1, MIDFORD HOUSE, MIDFORD GARDENS
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. SRI D.RAVISANKAR
S/O VEERAYYA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
TH
NO.D-602, 4 FLOOR
PRESTIGE ST. JOHN'S WOOD APARTMENTS
TAVAREKRE MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 009
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI PRABHULING K.NAVADGI, SR.ADVOCATE FOR
SRI S.B.MATHAPATI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
YESHWANTHAPURA SUB DIVISION
BENGALURU CITY - 560 027.
2. SRI S.RAJENDRAN
AGED MAJOR
S/O LATE SELVARAJ
ND
RESIDING AT NO.941/C, 2 BLOCK
TH TH
4 STAGE, 17 "B" MAIN ROAD,
BTM LAYOUT
- 5 -
BENGALURU - 560 076.
3.
SRI S.MEGANATHAN
AGED MAJOR
S/O LATE SELVARAJ
ND
RESIDING AT NO.941/C, 2 BLOCK
TH TH
4 STAGE, 17 "B" MAIN ROAD,
BTM LAYOUT
BENGALURU - 560 076.
4.
SRI S.SAMPATH
AGED MAJOR
S/O LATE SELVARAJ
ST
RESIDING AT NO.615, 1 FLOOR
TH TH
7 MAIN, 4 CROSS
VIJAY NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 040.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.WAHEEDA M.M., HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI SYED KHALEEL PASHA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 TO R-4)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WTIH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C.,
PRAYING TO i) QUASH THE COMPLAINT IN P.C.R.NO.36/2018
FILED BY R-2 TO 4 / COMPLAINANTS PENDING ON THE FILE OF
THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS AND
SPECIAL JUDGE, BANGALORE (ANNEXURE-A); ii) QUASH AND SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24.04.2019 PASSED IN P.C.R.
NO.36/2018 BY THE LEARNED LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS AND SPECIAL JUDGE, BANGALORE UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND THE SCHEDULED
TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT 1989 (ANNEXURE-B)
AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS THEREON; iii) QUASH POLICE
NOTICE BEARING NO.YSD/COMPLAINT/229/2019 DATED
10.01.2020 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF
- 6 -
POLICE, YESHWANTHPUR SUB-DIVISION, BANGALORE CITY AT
BANGALORE TO THE PETITIONERS ON 25.01.2020 ANNEXURE-C.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
The petitioners in Criminal Petition No.4657 of 2025 are
before the Court seeking the following reliefs:
"(i) Quash the Private Complaint bearing P.C.R.No.36 of 2018
dated 16-07-2018 for the offences punishable under the
provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
pending in the file of LXX Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge and Special Judge (CC-71) Bengaluru at
Annexure-A and to set aside the order dated 27.02.2025
in P.C.R.No.36 of 2018 passed by the LXX Additional City
Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (CCH-71)
Bengaluru referring the matter to the Commissioner of
Police under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C to take necessary
action as against the petitioners in accordance with law at
Annexure-B.
(ii) Further this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant such
other reliefs as deemed fit in the interest of justice and
equity.”
- 7 -
2. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:
The petitioners in both these petitions are the accused.
Respondent Nos.1 to 3 in the criminal petition and respondent
Nos.2 to 4 in the writ petition are the complainants in P.C.R. No.36
of 2018. It is the case of the complainants that the
petitioners/accused have trespassed into the property belonging to
the complainants and have vandalized their property. The said
incident happens in the year 2007. A private complaint comes to
be registered against these petitioners in P.C.R.No.36 of 2018 for
several offences including the offences under the provisions of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) and
offences under the IPC. The concerned Court refers the matter for
investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., for taking
necessary action and reporting back to the Court. It is this action
that has driven the petitioners to this Court in the criminal petition.
The petitioners in Writ Petition No.7439 of 2020 challenge the
earlier order dated 24-04-2019 passed by the concerned Court. But
the two in common challenge the entire proceedings before the
concerned Court in P.C.R.No.36 of 2018.
- 8 -
3. Heard in both the petitions Sri Prabhuling K. Navadgi,
learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners,
Smt. Waheeda M. M ., learned High Court Government Pleader
appearing for respondent No.1 in Writ Petition No.7439 of 2020 and
Sri Prabhugoud B. Tumbigi , learned counsel appearing for
respondent Nos.2 to 4 in Writ Petition No.7439 of 2020 and for the
respondents in Criminal Petition No.4657 of 2020.
4. The learned senior counsel Sri Prabhuling K. Navadgi
appearing for the petitioners would submit that the very
registration of private complaint against the petitioners is a blatant
abuse of the process of law. The learned Special Judge ought not to
have referred the matter for investigation without even preliminary
examination whether the offences could have been committed or
otherwise. An incident that happens in the year 2007, is complained
of in the year 2018, which is 11 years after the incident of alleged
trespass and hurling of abuses. If this cannot be termed as abuse
of the process of law, the learned senior counsel submits that there
cannot be a better illustration. He would seek quashment of the
proceedings.
- 9 -
5. Per contra , the learned counsel representing the
complainants Sri Prabhugoud B. Tumbigi would vehemently
refute the submissions in contending that there may be delay, but
the delay alone will not vitiate the proceedings, as there is fraud
played by the petitioners in knocking of the lands belonging to the
respondents. The lands belonging to the complainants are granted
lands from the hands of the State. These granted lands were never
the subject matter of acquisition for the purpose of NICE
project/road. Even then, the lands are acquired by forging grant
records and when the respondents questioned the petitioners, they
were meted with assault and abuses by taking the name of the
caste. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that the matter has
to be investigated into and the proceedings must not be obliterated.
6. The learned High Court Government Pleader
Smt. Waheeda M. M . appearing for the State, which is a
respondent in Criminal Petition No.4657 of 2020 would also contend
that the crime is still at the stage of investigation and this Court
must not interfere.
- 10 -
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the
material on record.
8. The afore-narrated facts are all what are pleaded in the
petitions or the objections, as the case would be. To answer the
issue that is projected before the Court, it is necessary to take a
little walk in the history. On 27-10-1998, the State Government
issues a Notification under Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Industrial
Areas Development Act, 1966 declaring Sy.No.86 of Kodigehalli
Village measuring 95 acres 17 guntas as industrial area. The
Government issued another notification seeking to acquire 12 acres
20 guntas of remaining portion in Sy.No.86, out of which, 79 acres
7 guntas were transferred to the Government. The possession of
the land was taken and handed over to the project – M/s Nandi
Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Limited (NICEL). The Karnataka
Industrial Areas Development Board (‘KIADB’) then executes a sale
deed in respect of 79 acres 07 guntas of land. A final notification
comes to be issued earlier on 08-05-2003. A portion of the private
land measuring 04 acres in Sy.No.86 was handed over to the
- 11 -
project by Government. The KIADB registers a sale deed in respect
of the said 04 acres of land as well in favour of the project
Company.
9. Then comes public interest petitions before this Court in
Writ Petition No.45334 of 2004 and connected cases challenging the
frame work agreement and seeking transfer of investigation to the
hands of the Central Bureau of Investigation. The matter reaches
up to the Apex Court, where the Apex Court on 20-04-2006
disposes of those petitions. The land-owners petitions come to be
dismissed and the challenge to the frame work agreement also
comes to be dismissed. Thus, ends the claim of those persons who
were agitated against the project.
10. After all the said events, on 31-03-2007, the
respondents/complainants had trespassed into the petitioners'
Company lands and tried to erect sheds with concrete blocks and
stone pillars. Therefore, petitioner No.3 registers a complaint
against the respondents/complainants in Crime No.130 of 2007 for
the offences under Sections 447, 427, 504 r/w 34 of the IPC and a
- 12 -
charge sheet is filed in the said case in C.C.No.4379 of 2012. The
respondents/complainants, however, stand acquitted today. On
16-07-2018, the respondents/complainants choose not to challenge
the acquisition notification, but register a private complaint in
P.C.R.No.36 of 2018 for several offences including the offence
under the Act. The concerned Court directed investigation of the
matter and report to be submitted.
11. The Yeshwantpur Police Station returned copy of the order
to the concerned Court along with papers submitting that the
alleged incident pertain to Sy.No.86/3 which would not come within
its jurisdiction and the jurisdiction was that of the Tavarekere Police
Station. Pursuant to the said report, the concerned Court directs
the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Yeshwantpur to register a
crime and investigate into the matter. Being aggrieved by issuance
of notice dated 10-01-2020, the petitioners approach this court in
Writ Petition No.7439 of 2020 seeking quashment of proceedings in
P.C.R.No.36 of 2018. The said writ petition is still pending. The
respondents challenged the order dated 17-09-2019 in P.C.R.No.36
of 2018 whereby investigation was directed to be conducted before
- 13 -
the wrong jurisdictional police in Criminal Petition No.6452 of 2021.
In the interregnum, the said private complaint itself is dismissed for
its non-prosecution. In all, by the orders passed by this Court, the
private complaint is now restored to file. The Police conduct
investigation. The investigation leads to filing of a ‘B’ report. The ‘B’
report is challenged and the concerned Court now refers the matter
for investigation again to the Commissioner of Police to take
necessary action in accordance with law. It is this that is called in
question in Criminal Petition No.4657 of 2025.
12. The offences alleged in the private complaint against the
petitioners are the ones punishable under the Act. The entire
fulcrum of the complaint traverses around an incident that has
happened in the year 2007 – a trespass and hurling of abuses. If
the incident has happened in the year 2007, nothing stopped the
respondents from immediately registering the complaint for the said
offences. The respondents/complainants waited for 11 years and
after 11 years now project that the hurling of abuses has violated
the rights of the respondents and has become the ingredients of the
offences under the Act. If this is permitted, hurling of abuses at any
- 14 -
point in the history can be permitted to be projected to become the
ingredients of the offences.
13. This forms a classic illustration as to the misuse and
abuse of the provisions of the Act. The narration in the complaint
begins in the year 2007 and ends in 2018, but the incident remains
only of 2007. The relevant portions of the complaint are necessary
to be noticed. They read as follows:
".... .... ....
13. The Accused committed heinous crimes against the
complainants under the following sections of the scheduled
castes and scheduled tribes punishable under (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act 1989 and other sections of the Indian Penal code,
for which these Complainants beg the Hon'ble Court to take
cognizance against the Accused as per law and render justice
viz.,
a) Under section 3(2) (v) and 324, 447, commits any
offence under the Indian Penal code (45 of 1860)
punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten
years or more against a person or property
(knowing that such person is a member of a
scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe or such
property belongs to such member), shall be
punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine.
The Complainants submit that they are the absolute owners of
the land situated in Sy No. 86/P3, measuring to an extent for 2
acres granted by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore
District, to their father late Selvaraj during his lifetime as per
G.O. No. RD 105 LGP 77 dated 01.09.1977 Regularization of
U/a Cultivation L.ND.S.R. 230/80-81 dated 17.01.1981 and as
per SL No. Darkhastu register No.LND. (3) SR. 514/83-84 dated
- 15 -
02.09.1983 of the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore
District of Kodigehalli Village, Yeshwanthapur Hobli, Bangalore
North Taluk.
The Complainants submit that for the illegal acts of the
Accused caused against the SC/ST Property Acts, the Accused
Nos.1 to 3 are punishable under the Section of Prevention of
Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribes by the Complainants as per
law or with imprisonment for life & with fine or both.
2
b) Under section of 3 (2) (va) and GSR 316 (E) (2) (d)
prevention of Atrocities Rule 1995 non-Government
organization means a voluntary organization
engaged in the welfare activities relating to the
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes and
registered under the Societies Registration Act,
1860 (21 of 1866) or under any law for the
registration of documents or such organization for
the time being in force, and committed any offence
against a person belong to SC/ST or property of
SC/St belongs to such member shall be punishable
under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) for such
offence and shall also be liable to fine.
The complainants have formed a registered society in the name
& style of S & P Education Society and had obtained requisite
permission from the Government of Karnataka, vide Register
No. BLU/S1154-2006-07 dated 16.01.2007 to impart the
education to the poor and needy children.
Accused A1, A2 & A3 engaged by its henchman and anti-social
elements destroyed the office building of S & P Education
Society by using their money and muscle power with
jurisdictional police protection and political cloud (Accused
A1,A2 & A3) damaged of education society building on
31.03.2007
They have acted in illegal manner; damaged land belong to
Complainant by using J.C.B. and other vehicle & machinery and
Excavator etc., kept valuable documents pertain belongs to
society building the Accused have taken away with them.
- 16 -
c) Under Section 3, 14, 20, section17(1) Indian penal
code, 1860, sections 312 and 376-code of criminal
procedure, 1973, sections 193 and 216- special
court for trial of offences under the scheduled
castes and scheduled tribes (prevention of
atrocities), Act, 1989-Police forwarding the accused
to the special court for trial of offences under the
act and also under the IPC- special court refusing to
take cognizance of the offence under the IPC on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction-jurisdiction of the
special court-whether limited to offences under the
act-offences under the IPC-whereas triable by the
special without an order of commitment as
contemplated in section 193 of criminal procedure
code.
Preventative under Section 17(1) action to be taken by the
law and order a District Magistrate of a Sub- Divisional
Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate or any police
officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police
may, on receiving information and after such inquiry as he may
think necessary, has reason to believe that a person or a group
of persons not belonging to the scheduled caste or the Schedule
Tribes residing in or frequenting any place within the local limits
of his jurisdiction is likely to commit an offence or has
threatened to commit any offence under this act and is of the
opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, declare
such an area to be an area prone to atrocities and take
necessary action and maintenance of public order and tranquility
ad may take preventive action.
The Accused No.3 with the support of accused A1 & A2 (Accused
A1,A2 & A3) grabbing the land of the complainants on
31.03.2007 at the point of time. Complainants lodged complaint
to Byadrahalli Police Station Magadi Main Road, the police officer
ASI refused to take complaint and finally complainant
approached to millers road on 31.03.2007 at 11.30 PM to
Superintendent of Police office lodged complaint went in vain.
Complaint ledged dated with reference.
31.03.2007 these dated complaint
05.04.2007 (Superintendent of Police
- 17 -
09.05.2009 Byadarahalli Police Station, Tavarekere Police
All the complaint went in vain
Acknowledge for reference.
d) Under Section 3 (2) (i) Gives or fabrics false
evidence intending thereby to cause, or knowing it
to be likely that he will thereby cause, any member
of a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe to be
convicted of an offence which is capital by the law
for the time being in force shall be punished with
imprisonment for life and with fine, and if an
innocent member of a scheduled caste or a
scheduled tribe be convicted and executed in
consequence of such false or fabricated evidence,
the person, who gives or fabricates such false
evidence, shall be punished with death ;
Accused No.A1, A2 with the support and misdirection of Accused
A3, lodged false FIR on 31/03/2007 in crime registered
No.130/2007 at Tavarekere police Station. for his alleged
offence of 447, 427, 504, R/W 34 of IPC and this after case call
of in the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Bengaluru in CJM.
Vide No. C.C 4379/2012 destroyed our own property
deliberately filed false case without any base.
The said Accused A1,A2 & A3 representative person did not
process any documentary evidence to claim their right over the
property in CJM court however the Hon'ble Court was pleased to
pass on order in our favour of 07.03.2014 a copy of order is
produced herewith for ready reference.
e) under section of 15-A (11) (d) (f)
It shall be the duty of his concerned state of specify
an appropriate scheme to ensure un-
implementation of rights and entitlements of
victims aerating justice 11 (d) damage of property
11(f) atrocity victims and their dependents in above
all the matter ended in acquittal of the alleged
charge and offence of Accused A1,A2 & A3 damages
loss suffered complaint No.1 Rajendaran 2.
Meganathan 3.Sampth, has narrated below :-our land
- 18 -
is entirely damaged Due to illegal act of Accused A1,A2 &
A3 lost our respect and diminished respect in the society,
mental agony and harassment due to false case false
evidence it made complainants to spend money and
thereby case monetary loss beside in told misery.
We are loss suffered by Accused A1,A2 & A3 continuously is in-
miserable.
And several other loss chased by accused besides loosing our
jobs.
Suffered mentally diseases lost money
Pledged gold jewelry complainants and family members
Sold Valuable vehicles. (Cars)
PRAYER
Wherefore, complaints most respectfully prays this Hon'ble
Court be pleased to take cognizance of the events as provided
under the Karnataka Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribe
(Prevention of Attrocities) Act, 1989, in the interest of justice
and equity."
The afore-quoted paragraphs themselves are clear that accused
engaged by their henchman, using their money and muscle power
damaged Education Society building on 31-03-2007. Hurling of
abuses were on the same day i.e., on 31-03-2007. If everything
has happened in the year 2007 why did the respondents wait to
register the crime for 11 long years remains completely
- 19 -
unexplained, even in the complaint. Therefore, the complaint is full
of embellishments.
14. It is in such circumstances the Apex Court directed this
Court to examine the complaints not being bogged down by the
offences alleged, but by several other factors.
14.1. The Apex Court in the case of MAHMOOD ALI v.
1
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH , has held as follows:
“…. …. ….
11. At this stage, we would like to observe
something important. Whenever an accused comes before
the Court invoking either the inherent powers under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings
quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings
are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with
the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such
circumstances the court owes a duty to look into the FIR
with care and a little more closely.
12. We say so because once the complainant
decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior
motive for wreaking personal vengeance etc. then he
would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted
with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would
ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are
such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to
constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be
1
2023 SCC OnLine SC 950
- 20 -
just enough for the Court to look into the averments
made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of
ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to
constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not.
13. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court
owes a duty to look into many other attending
circumstances emerging from the record of the case over
and above the averments and, if need be, with due care
and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The
Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section
482CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not
restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is
empowered to take into account the overall
circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the
case as well as the materials collected in the course of
investigation. Take for instance the case on hand.
Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time.
It is in the background of such circumstances the
registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance,
thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of
private or personal grudge as alleged.
14. State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy [ State of
A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy , (2004) 6 SCC 522 : 2004
SCC (Cri) 1805] , a two-Judge Bench of this Court
elaborated on the types of materials the High Court can
assess to quash an FIR. The Court drew a fine distinction
between consideration of materials that were tendered as
evidence and appreciation of such evidence. Only such
material that manifestly fails to prove the accusation in
the FIR can be considered for quashing an FIR. The Court
held : ( Golconda Linga Swamy case [ State of A.P. v. Golconda
Linga Swamy , (2004) 6 SCC 522 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1805] , SCC
p. 527, paras 5-7)
“ 5 . … Authority of the court exists for
advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to
abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court
has power to prevent such abuse. It would be an abuse
of the process of the court to allow any action which
would result in injustice and prevent promotion of
justice. In exercise of the powers court would be
justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation
- 21 -
or continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of
court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise
serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed
by the complaint, the court may examine the question of
fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it
is permissible to look into the materials to assess
what the complainant has alleged and whether
any offence is made out even if the allegations are
accepted in toto .
6 . In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab [ R.P.
Kapur v. State of Punjab , 1960 SCC OnLine SC 21 :
AIR 1960 SC 866] , this Court summarised some
categories of cases where inherent power can and
should be exercised to quash the proceedings :
(SCC OnLine SC para 6)
( i ) where it manifestly appears that there is
a legal bar against the institution or continuance
e.g. want of sanction;
( ii ) where the allegations in the first
information report or complaint taken at its face
value and accepted in their entirety do not
constitute the offence alleged;
( iii ) where the allegations constitute an
offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or
the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to
prove the charge .
7 . In dealing with the last category, it is
important to bear in mind the distinction between
a case where there is no legal evidence or where
there is evidence which is clearly inconsistent with
the accusations made, and a case where there is
legal evidence which, on appreciation, may or may
not support the accusations. When exercising
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the
High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an
enquiry whether the evidence in question is
reliable or not or whether on a reasonable
appreciation of it accusation would not be
sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge .
Judicial process, no doubt should not be an instrument
of oppression, or, needless harassment. Court should be
circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and
should take all relevant facts and circumstances into
- 22 -
consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an
instrument in the hands of a private complainant to
unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At
the same time the section is not an instrument handed
over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and
bring about its sudden death.”
(emphasis supplied)
15. In the result, this appeal succeeds and is hereby
allowed. The impugned order [ Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P. ,
2022 SCC OnLine All 2568] passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad is hereby set aside. The criminal
proceedings arising from FIR No. 127 of 2022 dated 4-6-2022
registered at Police Station Mirzapur, Saharanpur, State of U.P.
are hereby quashed.”
14.2. The Apex Court in its recent judgment rendered in the
2
case of ANITA MAURYA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH ,
observes that the criminal law cannot be set into motion to wreak
vengeance and that delay would vitiate criminal proceedings and
has held as follows:
"…. …. ….
14. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material on record. The question that falls for our
consideration is whether the continuation of complaint against
the appellants would amount to an abuse of the process of the
court.
15. The inherent power preserved by Section 482 of
CrPC, now Section 528 of BNSS, is exercisable to prevent the
abuse of the process of any court and to secure the ends of
2
2026 SCC OnLine SC 1519
- 23 -
1
justice. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , this Court set out
the illustrative categories in which the power may be exercised,
the relevant paragraph is reproduced as follows:
“ 102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the
various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter
XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court
in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the
extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent
powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have
extracted and reproduced above, we have given the
following categories of cases by way of illustration
wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent
abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure
the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay
down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently
channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae
and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases
wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even
if they are taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety do not prima
facie constitute any offence or make out a
case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first
information report and other materials, if
any, accompanying the FIR do not
disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers under
Section 156(1) of the Code except under
an order of a Magistrate within the
purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations
made in the FIR or complaint and the
evidence collected in support of the same
do not disclose the commission of any
offence and make out a case against the
accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but
constitute only a non-cognizable offence,
- 24 -
no investigation is permitted by a police
officer without an order of a Magistrate as
contemplated under Section 155(2) of the
Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no
prudent person can ever reach a just
conclusion that there is sufficient ground
for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar
engrafted in any of the provisions of the
Code or the concerned Act (under which a
criminal proceeding is instituted) to the
institution and continuance of the
proceedings and/or where there is a
specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious
redress for the grievance of the aggrieved
party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with
an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance
on the accused and with a view to spite
him due to private and personal grudge.”
16. The power is undoubtedly to be exercised
sparingly, with circumspection, and never to throttle a
legitimate prosecution or to conduct a mini trial at the
threshold. These self-imposed restraints, however, do not
require the court to shut its eyes to a proceeding that is a
manifest abuse. Where mala fide or an oblique motive is
alleged, the court is not confined to the four corners of
2
the complaint. In Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P. , this Court
held that in such a situation the court owes a duty to
examine the complaint with care and a little more closely,
and, where necessary, to read in between the lines.
17. The same principle was reiterated in Mohammad
3
Wajid v. State of U.P. , where it was observed:
- 25 -
“30. At this stage, we would like to observe
something important. Whenever an accused comes
before the Court invoking either the inherent powers
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal
proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such
proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or
instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking
vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a
duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more
closely. We say so because once the complainant decides
to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive
for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would
ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with
all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would
ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint
are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to
constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be
just enough for the Court to look into the
averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for
the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary
ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are
disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious
proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into
many other attending circumstances emerging
from the record of the case over and above the
averments and, if need be, with due care and
circumspection try to read in between the lines.
The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the
Constitution need not restrict itself only to the
stage of a case but is empowered to take into
account the overall circumstances leading to the
initiation/registration of the case as well as the
materials collected in the course of investigation.
Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have
been registered over a period of time. It is in the
background of such circumstances the registration of
multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting
the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or
personal grudge as alleged.”
( emphasis supplied )
- 26 -
18. It is equally settled that a dispute essentially
civil in character is not to be permitted to be clothed as a
criminal offence, and that the criminal process is not a
substitute for the remedies available in law. In G. Sagar
4
Suri v. State of U.P. , this Court cautioned that before
issuing process a criminal court must exercise a great
deal of caution, and that it is for the court to see whether
a matter essentially of a civil nature has been given the
cloak of a criminal offence.
19. Delay in setting the criminal law in motion,
when it is deliberate and unexplained, is a circumstance
that may itself justify the quashing of the proceeding . In
Kishan Singh (Dead) through Legal Representatives v. Gurpal
5
Singh , this Court observed:
“ 22. In cases where there is a delay in
lodging an FIR, the court has to look for a plausible
explanation for such delay. In the absence of such
an explanation, the delay may be fatal. The reason
for quashing such proceedings may not be merely
that the allegations were an afterthought or had
given a coloured version of events. In such cases
the court should carefully examine the facts before
it for the reason that a frustrated litigant who
failed to succeed before the civil court may initiate
criminal proceedings just to harass the other side
with mala fide intentions or the ulterior motive of
wreaking vengeance on the other party. Chagrined
and frustrated litigants should not be permitted to
give vent to their frustrations by cheaply invoking
the jurisdiction of the criminal court. The court
proceedings ought not to be permitted to
degenerate into a weapon of harassment and
persecution. In such a case, where an FIR is
lodged clearly with a view to spite the other party
because of a private and personal grudge and to
enmesh the other party in long and arduous
criminal proceedings, the court may take a view
that it amounts to an abuse of the process of law
in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
20. This principle has been applied by this Court very
6
recently in Nazibul Rahim Khan v. State of U.P. , where, this
- 27 -
Court while setting aside an order of the same High Court, held
that although civil and criminal remedies may co-exist upon the
same cause of action, there ought not to be an unreasonable or
inordinate gap between the institution of the two, the time-
factor being an indicator of whether the criminal
proceeding is genuine and bona fide or a mere pressure
tactic, and that the complainant is obliged to
satisfactorily explain the delay. This Court there expressly
approved and applied Kishan Singh (supra).
…. …. ….
22. Turning to the facts in the case in hand, the
chronology is not in dispute. The incident is that of
09.11.2020. On that very day the appellants' side lodged
the FIR, and a charge-sheet followed on 30.11.2020,
upon which the trial has commenced. The complaint of
the respondent, founded on the identical incident, was
instituted only in the year 2021, and no explanation has
been offered for the intervening delay. Such deliberate
and unexplained delay, set against a subsisting
antecedent proceeding on the same facts, is precisely the
circumstance which, in Kishan Singh (supra) and Nazibul
Rahim Khan (supra), was held to point to an oblique
motive rather than to a genuine grievance.
…. …. ….
24. Lastly, there remains the civil substratum of the
controversy. The dispute between the parties has, at its root, a
long-standing quarrel over land, agitated by the complainant
even by way of a public interest litigation. To permit a private
complaint, belatedly instituted and suppressing the
earlier FIR, to proceed against an entire family in these
circumstances would be to allow a matter essentially civil
to be pursued through the criminal process as an
instrument of harassment, a course against which this
Court in G. Sagar Suri case (supra) cautions. The
summoning of the entire family, including the three
women, upon a solitary and belated version, does not
reflect the careful application of mind by the Magistrate
that the issuance of process demands.
- 28 -
25. The High Court confined itself to the bare averments
of the complaint and treated the material placed by the
appellants as raising only disputed questions of fact for trial.
Where, however, the indicia of mala fide and abuse of
process appear on the record, the court is not merely
entitled but obliged to look beyond the averments and to
prevent the perpetuation of the abuse. Taking the
cumulative effect of the unexplained delay, the
suppression of the antecedent FIR, the counter-blast
character of the complaint and the essentially civil nature
of the dispute, we are of the considered view that the
case falls squarely within categories (1), (5) and (7) of
Bhajan Lal Case (supra), and that the continuation of the
complaint against the appellants would be nothing but an
abuse of the process of the court ."
14.3. Prior to the afore-quoted judgments of the Apex Court
in the cases of MAHMOOD ALI supra and ANITA MAURYA supra ,
the Apex Court in the case of CHANCHALPATI DAS v. STATE OF
3
WEST BENGAL has held as follows:
“…. …. ….
14. It is again pertinent to note that, even as per the
case of the complainant, the alleged incident of bus theft had
taken place in the year 2001, and it was only in 2009 that the
substantial complaint was made in the Court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Alipore. It is just not believable that the Ballygunge
Police Station concerned, Kolkata would not have taken any
action on the report made in 2002 on behalf of the powerful
body like I SKCON , Kolkata, or on the letter dated 30-9-2006
written by the Branch Manager of I SKCON , Kolkata. Respondent
2 complainant also did not take any concrete action for getting
the said complaint registered with regard to the alleged theft of
3
2023 SCC OnLine SC 650
- 29 -
bus for a long period of eight years, till the complaint in the
court was filed in the year 2009.
15. In the opinion of the Court such an inordinate
delay of eight years in filing the complaint in the court
itself would be a sufficient ground to quash the
proceedings. If the luxury bus owned by I SKCON , Kolkata
Branch in 1998 was so precious to them, they would not
have sat silent for such a long time of eight years. In our
opinion, the criminal machinery set into motion by filing
the complaint for the alleged incident which had taken
place eight years ago, that act itself was nothing but a
sheer misuse and abuse of the process of the court.
16. That apart, from the bare perusal of the complaint
filed before the Court, on the basis of which the FIR was
registered at Ballygunge Police Station on 20-2-2009, it is
discernible that except bald allegations made in the complaint
with regard to the theft of bus in question there was no material
or document produced by the complainant to substantiate the
allegations against the appellants. Even after the investigation
of the said complaint, there was no evidence collected by the
investigating officer to prima facie satisfy the ingredients
constituting the alleged offences under Sections 468, 471, 406
and 120-BIPC. Even if the allegations made in the complaint as
well as in the charge-sheet are taken at their face value none of
the ingredients constituting the alleged offences are culled out.
The learned Senior Counsel Mr Shyam Divan for the appellants
had strenuously urged relying upon the documents pertaining to
the transfer of ownership and registration of the said bus, that
the said documents were executed by the then authorised
SKCON
persons of I , Kolkata, in our opinion, the said documents
could not be considered in these proceedings, the same being
not the part of the charge-sheet papers.
17. In any case, there is nothing to suggest from the
other documents on record of the instant appeals that the
investigating officer had even bothered to collect any cogent or
substantive evidence against the appellants to prosecute them
for the alleged offences. There was no expert opinion obtained
or scientific evidence collected on the documents allegedly
forged to show as to by whom, when and how the theft of
vehicle and forgery of documents were committed. Under the
- 30 -
circumstances, allowing such prosecution to continue would not
only be an empty formality but would be gross wastage of
court's precious time.
18. It cannot be gainsaid that the High Courts have
power to quash the proceedings in exercise of powers under
Section 482CrPC to prevent the abuse of process of any court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Though the powers
under Section 482 should be sparingly exercised and with great
caution, the said powers ought to be exercised if a clear case of
abuse of process of law is made out by the accused. In State of
Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy [ State of Karnataka v. L.
Muniswamy , (1977) 2 SCC 699 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 404] the
Supreme Court had held that the criminal proceedings could be
quashed by the High Court under Section 482 if the court is of
the opinion that allowing the proceedings to continue would be
an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice
require that the proceedings are to be quashed.
... ... ...
20. In State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy [ State
of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy , (2004) 6 SCC 522 :
2004 SCC (Cri) 1805] this Court had observed that the
court would be justified to quash the proceedings if it
finds that initiation or continuance of such proceedings
would amount to abuse of the process of court.
21. As regards inordinate delay in filing the complaint it
has been recently observed by this Court in Hasmukhlal
D. Vora v. State of T.N. [ Hasmukhlal D. Vora v. State of
T.N. , (2022) 15 SCC 164: (2024) 2 SCC (Cri) 632] that
though inordinate delay in itself may not be a ground for
quashing of a criminal complaint, however unexplained
inordinate delay must be taken into consideration as a
very crucial factor and ground for quashing a criminal
complaint.
22. In the light of the aforestated legal position, if
the facts of the case are appreciated, there remains no
shadow of doubt that the complaint filed by the
respondent complainant after an inordinate unexplained
- 31 -
delay of eight years was nothing but sheer misuse and
abuse of the process of law to settle personal scores with
the appellants, and that continuation of such malicious
prosecution would also be further abuse and misuse of
process of law , more particularly when neither the allegations
made in the complaint nor in the charge-sheet, disclose any
prima facie case against the appellants. The allegations made
against the appellants are so absurd and improbable that no
prudent person can ever reach to a conclusion that there is a
sufficient ground for proceeding against the appellants-
accused.”
In the light of the afore-quoted judgments of the Apex Court, if the
allegations are noticed, the alleged hurling of abuses in the year
2007 or incident of the year 2007 had no impact upon these
complainants/respondents. The impact is felt in the year 2018. It
has taken 11 years to feel the impact. Even if the contents of the
complaint are taken as true, it would not make out an offence, for it
being marred by delay.
15. In such circumstances, the observations of the Apex Court
4
in STATE OF HARYANA v. BHAJAN LAL become apposite. The
observations of the Apex Court are as follows:
".... .... ....
102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various
relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the
4
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
- 32 -
principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions
relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article
226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code
which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the
following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such
power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process
of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it
may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined
and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid
formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases
wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information
report or the complaint, even if they are taken at
their face value and accepted in their entirety do
not prima facie constitute any offence or make out
a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and
other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not
disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation
by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code
except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview
of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or
complaint and the evidence collected in support of the
same do not disclose the commission of any offence and
make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint
are so absurd and inherently improbable on the
basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a
just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused.
- 33 -
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of
the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under
which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the
institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or
where there is a specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the
grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with
mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance
on the accused and with a view to spite him due to
private and personal grudge.”
(Emphasis supplied at each instance)
In the light of the aforesaid facts, permitting investigation in the
case at hand would become an abuse of the process of law and
result in miscarriage of justice.
16. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
O R D E R
(i) Criminal Petition and Writ Petition are allowed.
- 34 -
(ii) Proceedings in P.C.R.No.36 of 2018 pending before the
LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special
Judge, Bengaluru stand quashed qua the petitioners.
Pending applications if any, also stand disposed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
BKP