Section 482 CrPC| 'Other Attending Circumstances' Can Be Looked Into To Examine Whether Criminal Proceeding Is Instituted Maliciously With Ulterior Motives: Kerala HC

The Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen observed, “the legal position is clear that quashment of criminal proceedings can be resorted to when the prosecution materials do not constitute materials to attract the offence alleged to be committed. Similarly, the Court owes a duty to look into the other attending circumstances, over and above the averments to see whether there are materials to indicate that a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and proceeding instituted maliciously with ulterior motives. Once the said fact is established, the same is a good reason to quash the criminal proceedings.."

Advocate C.K. Anwar appeared for the Petitioners whereas Sr. PP Renjit George appeared for the Respondents.

A criminal miscellaneous petition was filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking to quash a final report and all further proceedings in a criminal case filed under Sections 143, 147, 447, 294(b), 506(i) and Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The case of the prosecution was that the Petitioners formed an unlawful assembly, with the knowledge that they were all members of the said assembly. The Petitioners abused and threatened the de facto complainant, due to animosity that arose out of non-payment of a loan availed by the husband of the de facto complainant from Citizens Co-operative Society.

The Petitioners trespassed upon the courtyard of the house of the de facto complainant, abused the de facto complainant and threatened the de facto complainant and her husband.

The Court, while relying on Vineet Kumar & Ors. v. State of U.P & anr.(2017 SC), held that the inherent power given to the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. was with the purpose and object of advancement of justice and any person seeking such relief with oblique motive, the Court has to thwart the attempt at the very threshold.

The Court also placed its reliance on the landmark judgment of the Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1960 SC), which illustratively enumerated the categories where the Court cannot permit a prosecution i.e. when there are material to indicate that a criminal proceeding which cannot be allowed to be converted into an instrument of operation or harassment; when there are material to indicate that a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive.

“Therefore, the legal position is clear that quashment of criminal proceedings can be resorted to when the prosecution materials do not constitute materials to attract the offence alleged to be committed. Similarly, the Court owes a duty to look into the other attending circumstances, over and above the averments to see whether there are materials to indicate that a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and proceeding instituted maliciously with ulterior motives. Once the said fact is established, the same is a good reason to quash the criminal proceedings.”, the Court observed.

The Court concluded that when the officials of the Co-operative Society demanded repayment of the loan amount, and no serious overt acts were even alleged, false implication to nullify the demand for the loan amount is the intention to be drawn from the materials.

Therefore, the Court applied the ratio of the above-referred decisions and quashed the criminal proceedings against the Petitioners.

Cause Title: Jitha Sanjay and Ors v. State of Kerala and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:100069-DB)

Appearances:

Petitioners: Advocates C.K. Anwar, K.S. Sumeesh and Aswathi Vakkayil

Respondents: Sr. Public Prosecutor Sri. Renjit George

Click here to read/download the Order