Unexplained Inordinate Delay and Personal Animosity Render Criminal Prosecution a Malicious Abuse of Process

The Petitioner, a recognized microlight aircraft pilot, underwent a flying test for license renewal in September 2014, with Respondent No. 2 (Complainant) acting as the examiner

In 2015, the Petitioner obtained a divorce from her husband on grounds of adultery, alleging he had a relationship with the Complainant

In October 2017—three years after the test—the Complainant alleged to the DGCA and subsequently to the Police that the Petitioner had forged her signatures and seal on the skill test report and logbook to secure the renewal

The police initially filed a ‘B’ report (closure report) due to lack of evidence, but the Magistrate ordered further investigation

A chargesheet was subsequently filed for offences under Sections 420, 465, 471, 468, 473, and 201 of the IPC

1. Whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed on the grounds of inordinate, unexplained delay and malicious intent arising from personal vendetta

2. Whether an inconclusive FSL report regarding handwriting is sufficient to continue a criminal prosecution when the statutory regulatory body (DGCA) is still seized of the matter

The court applied Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. regarding the inherent power of the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of law

It relied on Chanchalpati Das v. State of West Bengal, which establishes that inordinate, unexplained delay in filing a complaint is a ground for quashing if it suggests a misuse of the court process

It followed the guidelines in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, specifically category (7), which permits quashing where proceedings are maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance due to private grudge

Per Rajeshbhai Muljibhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, the court noted that a handwriting expert's opinion under Section 45 of the Evidence Act is relevant but not conclusive evidence and should not be the sole basis for continuing a prosecution when the underlying dispute is still under regulatory/civil adjudication

The Court observed that the Complainant remained silent for nearly four years despite being in the same specialized aviation field as the Petitioner and knowing the Petitioner continued to fly

The timing of the complaint, coinciding with the Petitioner’s high-profile circumnavigation expedition and following a bitter matrimonial dispute involving the Complainant, suggested a "malicious" intent to settle personal scores rather than a genuine pursuit of justice

The Court analyzed the FSL report and concluded that while it found the signatures did not match, such technical expert testimony is not conclusive under law

Crucially, the Court noted that the DGCA—the specialized authority for aviation licensing—had not yet reached a finding of fraud. Allowing a parallel criminal trial to proceed on highly technical aviation documentation before the DGCA’s own determination would be "precipitous" and an abuse of process

The Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings in C.C.No.20922/2022 and the underlying chargesheet/FIR, while clarifying these observations would not prejudice the DGCA’s independent, ongoing technical inquiry