Retaliatory complaint proceedings instituted to wreak vengeance warrant quashing under Bhajan Lal principles.

The complainant, who operated a diesel mill and had an electricity connection, alleged that four persons entered his mill on 12 September 2016, claimed to be officials of the Electricity Department, began removing electrical devices, demanded ₹10,000 for permitting the mill to operate through a generator, and abused and assaulted him when he objected.

The petitioners were officials and an employee of the Electricity Department, Barun. They contended that they had conducted a raid at the complainant’s premises and detected electricity theft, pursuant to which Barun P.S. Case No. 141 of 2016 was lodged against the complainant on 15 September 2016.

The complainant subsequently instituted Complaint Case No. 753 of 2016 on 19 September 2016, alleging an occurrence dated 11 September 2016.

On the basis of the complainant’s sworn statement and the evidence of enquiry witnesses, the Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioners for offences under Sections 326, 386 and 504 of the IPC and directed issuance of summons by order dated 17 May 2017.

Whether the cognizance order dated 17 May 2017, passed against the petitioners for offences under Sections 326, 386 and 504 of the IPC, was liable to be quashed in exercise of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction.

Whether the complaint was manifestly mala fide and instituted with an ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance after the Electricity Department lodged an electricity-theft case against the complainant.

The Court applied the principles governing quashing of criminal proceedings under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

It relied principally on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, particularly Category 7 of paragraph 102, under which criminal proceedings may be quashed where they are manifestly attended with mala fides or maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance or settle a private and personal grudge.

The Bhajan Lal categories are illustrative grounds for preventing abuse of the process of court and securing the ends of justice.

The Court accepted the petitioners’ undisputed submission that they were Electricity Department personnel who had raided the complainant’s premises and that an electricity-theft FIR had been lodged against him on 15 September 2016.

It considered the close temporal sequence: the alleged occurrence was stated to have taken place on 11 September 2016, the FIR against the complainant was lodged on 15 September 2016, and the complaint against the petitioners was filed on 19 September 2016.

In view of that sequence, and since the prosecution could not dispute the raid and the prior FIR, the Court inferred that the complaint was instituted as retaliation and for settling personal vengeance.

The proceedings therefore fell within Category 7 of Bhajan Lal, warranting interference to prevent abuse of the process of court.

Accordingly, it quashed the cognizance order dated 17 May 2017 passed by the ACJM VIII, Aurangabad, in Complaint Case No. 753 of 2016, along with all consequential proceedings, insofar as they related to the petitioners.

The application was allowed, and a copy of the judgment was directed to be sent to the court below.