2023 (5) TMI 1403 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court quashes FIR under SC/ST Act finding civil land dispute criminalized with ulterior motives after 60-year delay

The SC allowed the criminal petition and quashed the FIR filed under SC/ST Act and IPC. The Court held that the dispute was purely civil in nature ... Rejection of Criminal Petition - dispute is of a civil nature or involves criminal elements - legitimacy of the FIR and allegations under the SC/ST Act and IPC - applicability of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the FIR - HELD THAT:- In UMA SHANKAR GOPALIKA VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. [2004 (3) TMI 807 - SUPREME COURT], it was held that when the complaint fails to disclose any criminal offence, the proceeding is liable to be quashed under Section 482 of the Code. What is evincible from the extant case-law is that this Court has been consistent in interfering in such matters where purely civil disputes, more often than not, relating to land and/or money are given the colour of criminality, only for the purposes of exerting extra-judicial pressure on the party concerned, which, we reiterate, is nothing but abuse of the process of the court. In the present case, there is a huge, and quite frankly, unexplained delay of over 60 years in initiating dispute with regard to the ownership of the land in question, and the criminal case has been lodged only after failure to obtain relief in the civil suits, coupled with denial of relief in the interim therein to the respondent no.2/her family members. It is evident that resort was now being had to criminal proceedings which, in the considered opinion of this Court, is with ulterior motives, for oblique reasons and is a clear case of vengeance. This Court would indicate that the officers, who institute an FIR, based on any complaint, are duty- bound to be vigilant before invoking any provision of a very stringent statute, like the SC/ST Act, which imposes serious penal consequences on the concerned accused. The officer has to be satisfied that the provisions he seeks to invoke prima facie apply to the case at hand. It is clarified that remarks, in no manner, are to dilute the applicability of special/stringent statutes, but only to remind the police not to mechanically apply the law, dehors reference to the factual position. The Court finds that the High Court fell in error in not invoking its wholesome power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the FIR. Accordingly, the Impugned Judgment, being untenable in law, is set aside - Appeal allowed. Issues Involved:1. Whether the dispute is of a civil nature or involves criminal elements.2. The legitimacy of the FIR and allegations under the SC/ST Act and IPC.3. The applicability of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the FIR.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Nature of the Dispute:The primary contention by the appellant was that the matter is purely civil, revolving around the title of land on which GMID constructed apartments. The appellant argued that multiple authorities, including revenue bodies and BBMP, had sanctioned the construction, and initial civil litigation favored the original land-owners. The appellant alleged that the FIR was an abuse of process, filed by a family member of an unsuccessful litigant to exert pressure and settle civil disputes. The court observed a significant delay of over 60 years in raising the dispute, indicating a lack of bona fide intentions and an ulterior motive to misuse the criminal process after failing in civil suits.2. Legitimacy of the FIR and Allegations:The FIR was filed under various sections of the IPC and the SC/ST Act, alleging cheating, criminal conspiracy, and trespass. The appellant argued that these allegations were frivolous and vexatious, intended to coerce the appellant. The court noted that the complaint and FIR were filed after the complainant's family failed to secure relief in civil litigation, suggesting malafide intentions. The invocation of the SC/ST Act was deemed inappropriate as the allegations did not prima facie constitute any offence under the said Act. The court emphasized that officers must be vigilant before invoking stringent statutes like the SC/ST Act, ensuring that provisions apply to the case at hand.3. Applicability of Section 482 of the Code:The appellant sought to quash the FIR under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, arguing it was an abuse of the process. The court highlighted that inherent powers under Section 482 should be exercised to prevent misuse of judicial processes, especially when civil disputes are given a criminal color to exert undue pressure. The court referred to precedents emphasizing that criminal proceedings should not be used as instruments of oppression or harassment. It concluded that the High Court erred in not invoking its power under Section 482 to quash the FIR, as the allegations were frivolous and did not disclose any criminal offence.Conclusion:The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and quashing the FIR and related proceedings against the appellant. It reiterated the necessity of exercising inherent powers to prevent abuse of court processes and underscored the duty of officers to apply stringent laws like the SC/ST Act judiciously. The appeal was allowed without any order towards costs, and pending applications were consigned to records.