https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181549 A complaint under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, based on an that a second writ petition was false, malicious and vexatious, was held not sustainable because the earlier contempt proceedings had already examined the same filing history, accepted the explanation and apology, and been disposed of. The Court noted that attracting the penal provision required a legally sustainable showing of falsity and the requisite intent, not merely an unsuccessful or later-disputed proceeding. Since the same controversy had already been closed, a fresh criminal prosecution on the identical foundation amounted to abuse of process and was liable to be quashed. en-us Fri, 11 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Aug 2018 10:03:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181549 A complaint under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, based on an that a second writ petition was false, malicious and vexatious, was held not sustainable because the earlier contempt proceedings had already examined the same filing history, accepted the explanation and apology, and been disposed of. The Court noted that attracting the penal provision required a legally sustainable showing of falsity and the requisite intent, not merely an unsuccessful or later-disputed proceeding. Since the same controversy had already been closed, a fresh criminal prosecution on the identical foundation amounted to abuse of process and was liable to be quashed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 11 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181549