Patna HC quashes retaliatory land-dispute case alleging man urinated into woman’s mouth

Sita Devi filed a complaint alleging that, on 30 January 2016, the petitioners assaulted and abused her, took her jewellery, and humiliated her.

After examining the complainant and two inquiry witnesses, the Magistrate took cognizance under Sections 323, 379 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and directed issuance of process on 19 August 2016.

The petitioners sought quashing under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), contending that the complaint was a retaliatory response to existing disputes and proceedings between the parties.

1. Whether the complaint and inquiry materials disclosed a prima facie basis for the offences under Sections 323, 379 and 504 IPC against the petitioners

2. Whether, in light of the parties’ prior disputes and proceedings, continuation of the complaint amounted to an abuse of process warranting quashing under Section 482 CrPC

Section 482 CrPC preserves the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of any court and secure the ends of justice.

The Court relied on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, including the principles that proceedings may be quashed where allegations are inherently improbable or are manifestly mala fide and instituted to wreak vengeance.

It also relied on Eicher Tractor Ltd. v. Harihar Singh, (2008) 16 SCC 763, for the principle that continuation of proceedings initiated as a counterblast may constitute abuse of process.

The alleged offences were under Sections 323, 379 and 504 IPC; the Court concluded that their essential ingredients were not made out on the complaint and inquiry materials.

The Court considered the complaint, the complainant’s solemn affirmation, and the inquiry witnesses’ statements, and found the allegations general, omnibus and sweeping.

It also noted the parties’ ongoing disputes over landed property and the history of criminal cases between them, including proceedings instituted before the present complaint.

In that context, the Court found the complaint to be a retaliatory proceeding and held that the materials did not establish the essential ingredients of the offences for which cognizance had been taken.

It therefore treated continuation of the prosecution as an abuse of process and the cognizance order as reflecting non-application of judicial mind.