'Abuse Of Process Of Law': Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Officials Of Special Armed Forces Over A Land Dispute

Th bench noted that the High Court ought to have quashed the complaint as the further prosecution of the complaint was itself an abuse of the process of law.

A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed, “In substance, the cause of action for filing the Contempt Petition and the alleged cause of action for filing the complaint was substantially the same. It is surprising that though the Contempt Petition was already filed in 2016, the said fact has not been mentioned in the complaint filed by the first respondent in the year 2017. The fact that the Contempt Petition was filed has not even been disclosed in the statement of the first petitioner recorded in the complaint. The first respondent did not challenge the dismissal of the Contempt Petition. In view of the finding recorded in the Contempt Petition by the High Court, taking the cognizance of the said complaint was surely an abuse of the process of law. The cognizance was taken after the dismissal of the Contempt Petition by a detailed order”.

The bench also noted that no dates were mentioned for the alleged acts of encroachment and administering threats. 

During the pendency of the Contempt Petition, the complaint subject matter of the petition under Section 200 of CrPC was filed by the first respondent alleging the commission of offences under Sections 323, 294, 427, 341, 447, 506B read with Section 34 and Sections 107, 141 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

In the present matter the legal proceedings included a civil suit, a Contempt Petition, and a criminal complaint under Section 200 CrPC. The complaint was initially dismissed by the trial court in exercise of powers under Section 203 CrPC holding that the mandatory requirement of obtaining a sanction to prosecute the appellants in accordance with Section 197 CrPC was not obtained., however, in revision the Additional Sessions Judge remanded the case to the Magistrate for further inquiry. The Magistrate eventually directed cognizance of certain offenses under the IPC without addressing the issue of sanction. The High Court then upheld the Magistrate's decision..

In the arguments by the appellants, it was submitted that the acts attributed to them were done in the performance of the statutory duties as officers of the SAF, and that the Magistrate completely overlooked that aspect. Further that he did not decide on the issue of the requirement of sanction at all. Furthermore, in view of the earlier dismissal of the Contempt Petition, the order of summoning ought not to have been issued by the Magistrate.

Substantially, the bench observed that the cause of action for both the Contempt Petition and the criminal complaint filed by the respondent was substantially the same. Surprisingly, the fact that the Contempt Petition was already filed in 2016 was not disclosed in the subsequent complaint filed in 2017, nor was it mentioned in the respondent's statement recorded during the complaint process. Despite the dismissal of the Contempt Petition by a detailed order, cognizance of the complaint was taken, which amounted to an abuse of legal process. Additionally, the lack of specific dates and inconsistencies in the allegations further cast doubt on the credibility of the complaint. Therefore, the court concluded that the continuation of the complaint itself constituted an abuse of the legal process. Consequently, the High Court's order and the Magistrate's order taking cognizance were quashed, and the complaint filed by the respondent was dismissed.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.