Frivolous & Vexatious Proceedings Should Be Met With Due Sanctions In Form Of Exemplary Costs: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that frivolous and vexatious proceedings should be met with due sanctions in the form of exemplary costs to dissuade parties from resorting to such tactics.
The Court set aside the order of the Madras High Court which ordered further investigation in a decade-old murder case by a “cryptic order.” Noting the “outrageous and ex facie unbelievable averments” made in the pleadings/petitions with “no inhibition whatsoever,” the Court stated that any proceeding or application that prima facie lacks merit should not be instituted in a court.
A Bench of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan observed, “These misadventures directly impinge on the rule of law, because they add to the pendency and the consequential delay in the disposal of other cases which are crying for justice. It is time that such frivolous and vexatious proceedings are met with due sanctions in the form of exemplary costs to dissuade parties from resorting to such tactics. If we have desisted from such a course in this case, it is only because the High Court allowed the petition and it is here that we have, reversing the High Court, dismissed the petition for further investigation.”
Senior Advocate Jayanth Muth Raj represented the appellant, while Senior Advocate S. Nagamuthu and Senior AAG Amit Anand Tiwari appeared for the respondents.
The wife of the deceased and the respondent in the case had filed multiple applications seeking further investigation. She argued that witnesses, including eye-witnesses, had not been summoned by the police, and evidence, such as the deceased’s mobile phone, had not been examined.
Even though the trial court rejected these applications, the Madras High Court in 2020 issued an order directing further investigation, primarily based on the claim that an earlier application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. was denied due to the absence of a petition seeking additional investigation.
The appellant submitted that the application filed by the respondent was a disguised attempt to reopen the earlier proceedings under Section 311 of the CrPC which attained finality. The appellant argued that after framing of the charges, the respondent not being a complainant cannot file an application for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. Moreover, it was contended that the trial court had no jurisdiction to entertain such an application under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. after framing of the charges.
The Supreme Court noted that the trial court had held that further investigation cannot be ordered at the post cognizance stage either suo moto or at the instance of victims/complainants or at the instance of anyone else except the investigating agency and that the petition was only filed to prolong the proceedings.
The Court reiterated its decision in Devendra Nath Singh v. State of Bihar where it was held that though the power to order further investigation was a significant power, it must be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases to achieve the ends of justice.
“Applying the above law to the facts of the present case, we find that…the direction for further investigation is absolutely unwarranted…The application for further investigation was filed in January 2020 by respondent no. 1. The charge sheet under Section 173 Cr.P.C. too had been filed as early as on 11.07.2013,” the Court observed.
Consequently, the Court held, “We are convinced that ordering the additional charge sheet to be taken on record at this stage pursuant to the further investigation will not be in accordance with law. It will be contrary to the settled principles as laid down by this Court.”
“The net result has been that all the stakeholders in the process have contributed to the delay and in spite of eleven years having elapsed after the incident, the trial has still not concluded. No doubt, the High Court allowed the further investigation which we have today reversed. The judgment of the High Court also gave no valid justification for ordering a further investigation,” the Court observed.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal.
Cause Title: K. Vadivel v. K. Shanthi & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 746)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Jayanth Muth Raj; Advocates Purushothaman Reddy and Shivansh Dubey; AOR Vinodh Kanna B.
Respondents: Senior Advocate S. Nagamuthu; Senior AAG Amit Anand Tiwari; AOR M.P. Parthiban, Sabarish Subramanian and Kaustubh Shukla; Advocates R. Sudhakaran, Bilal Mansoor, Shreyas Kaushal, S. Geyolin Selvam, Alagiri K, Devyani Gupta, Vishnu Unnikrishnan, C. Kranthi Kumar, Danish Saifi, B. Sarathraj, Chandra Bhushan Tiwari, Sanket Vashistha and Samridhi Srivastava