Jharkhand High Court: In a petition filed by the petitioner to quash the criminal proceedings pending against him, Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J., stated that under Section 4821 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) and Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court had wide power to quash the proceedings even in non-compoundable offences in order to prevent abuse of process of law and to secure ends of justice. The Court further stated that apart from the fact that abuses were not hurled in public, the timing of the complaint was required to be noticed. The litigations initiated by the victim was sought to misuse the provisions and abuse the process of law, only to wreak vengeance. It was due to the cases of this nature where the provisions of the Act were grossly misused, at times, genuine complaints of people who have actually suffered such abuses, would go into the oblivion.
The Court stated that if the criminal proceedings were allowed to continue against the petitioner, the same would be abuse of process of law. Thus, the Court quashed the entire criminal proceedings against the petitioner.
Background
In the present case, a case was instituted alleging that the informant (‘victim’) was assured by one person, that she would secure a job of a computer operator. However, upon coming to Ranchi she was assigned to household work at the residence of the accused. The victim used to do the household work at the Petitioner’s house (which included cooking meals) after which she would attend college.
It was further alleged that the behaviour of the petitioner was never good with respect to the victim. He gradually started outraging her modesty. It was further alleged that whenever the victim would go to give tea to the petitioner, he would touch her inappropriately and have an evil eye on her. It was alleged that in March 2020 at night, the petitioner was in intoxicated stated and started touching her inappropriately. The information slapped the petitioner and rushed upstairs but the petitioner came upstairs and outraged her modesty and demanded sexual favours. When the victim started to scream but no one heard and ultimately petitioner forced himself upon her. The victim told her ordeal to the other staff members.
Meanwhile, the petitioner started to call the victim and apologized and asked to not disclose the incident to anyone. However, the victim left the house of the accused in July 2020. Lastly, it was alleged that whenever the victim would rebuke the advances of the petitioner, she would be abused in the name of caste.
Thus, the FIR was registered against the petitioner under Sections 5062 and 343 of the Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘SC/ST Act’).
Petitioner submitted that the present case had been initiated by misleading and coercing the informant as part of an organized conspiracy against him due to political vendetta. In August 2020, a lady alleged that she was raped by the current Chief Minister of The State of Jharkhand in 2013. She filed a complaint before the competent authorities; however, she was coerced to withdraw the same. The petitioner helped the lady by using his own resources and filed a petition acting as ‘parivikar’ on behalf of the lady. The petitioner stated that because of the steps taken by him against the Chief Minister of the State of Jharkhand, the entire State machinery conspired to implicate him in a false case on one pretext or another.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that in the present case for the alleged allegations of March 2020, the FIR was registered on 16-08-2021. The Court observed that it was disclosed that the petitioner had helped a lady against the sitting Chief Minister of the State of the Jharkhand and that is why all this trap was made and that was not denied in the counter-affidavit which clearly suggested that maliciously the present case was registered against the petitioner.
The Court stated that it was well settled that the Investigating Officer must make clear and complete entries of all columns in the charge sheet. After looking into the charge-sheet, the Court observed that there was no mention of date and time when victim was sent for medical examination. Petitioner’s and victim’s mobile were sent for data recovery and data was recovered but, details of that were not disclosed in the charge-sheet. It was disclosed in the charge-sheet that mobile, dongal and SIM was sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, but no discussion regarding nature of the finding of the said laboratory was present.
Thus, the Court stated that in view of above discussions, the petitioner had helped one lady against the allegation of incumbent sitting Chief Minister, which clearly suggested that maliciously the case was registered against the petitioner and the investigation was also made with pre-occupied mind.
The Court stated that under Section 482 of CrPC and Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court had wide power to quash the proceedings even in non-compoundable offences to prevent abuse of process of law and to secure ends of justice. Further, it was well settled that even after filing of the charge-sheet, if case of quashing was made out, the Court could exercise the said power of quashing the entire criminal proceeding.
Further, regarding the second FIR registered under Sections 3(1)(r) and Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act was added, the Court stated that hurling of abuses was required to be noticed. The provision stated that the abuses should be hurled in the public place and in the place of public view. In the present case, the hurling of abuses was neither in a public place nor in a place of a public view.
The Court further stated that apart from the fact that abuses were not hurled in public, the timing of the complaint was required to be noticed. The litigations initiated by the victim was sought to misuse the provisions and abuse the process of law, only to wreak vengeance. It was due to the cases of this nature where the provisions of the Act were grossly misused, at times, genuine complaints of people who have suffered such abuses, would go into the oblivion.
The Court stated that if the criminal proceedings were allowed to continue against the petitioner, the same would be abuse of process of law. Thus, the Court quashed the entire criminal proceedings against the petitioner.
[X v. State of Jharkhand, 2024 SCC OnLine Jhar 3970, decided on 21-10-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Prashant Pallava, Advocate; Parth Jalan, Advocate; Shivani Jaluka, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Gopal Shankar Narayanan, Sr. Advocate (through V.C.); Manoj Kumar, G.A.-III; Deepankar Roy, A.C. to G.A.-III
For the Victim: Amrendra Pradhan, Advocate
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
1. Corresponding Section 528 of Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
2. Corresponding Section 351(2); 351(3) of Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’)