Simplified Explanation of the Judgment
In a recent judgment dated 28th March 2024, the Hon'ble Patna High Court set aside a lower court order that had taken cognizance against a petitioner for criminal breach of trust, cheating, and intentional insult (Sections 406, 420, and 504 of IPC). The court held that the complaint against the petitioner was an example of malicious prosecution.
The petitioner was serving as an Assistant Manager in the Bihar State Food Corporation (SFC), and the complainant was a Manager in the Food Corporation of India (FCI). According to the complaint, during the period from 30 August 2010 to 31 December 2010, the petitioner deposited a large sum for lifting rice from the FCI godown. It was later alleged that the petitioner lifted more rice than permitted, without payment.
However, the High Court noted that a separate CBI inquiry had already investigated the same incident. Surprisingly, the CBI found the complainant, not the petitioner, responsible for the irregularities and filed a charge sheet against him. In the same case, the petitioner was listed only as a witness.
Given this background, the High Court ruled that the complaint filed by the complainant was done with mala fide intention and with a personal grudge against the petitioner, especially since the complaint was filed after the complainant became the subject of internal inquiry.
Significance of the Judgment
This judgment is a strong reaffirmation of the legal safeguards available against misuse of the criminal justice process. It emphasizes that courts must prevent abuse of legal proceedings and protect individuals from being dragged into unnecessary and unjustified litigation. For common people and government officials alike, the ruling acts as a shield against false or retaliatory charges.
Legal Issues Decided and the Decision of the Court
Whether the complaint against the petitioner disclosed a prima facie case? No
Whether the complaint was filed with mala fide intentions? Yes
Whether the High Court could exercise its power under Section 482 CrPC to quash the complaint? Yes
Result: Cognizance order dated 16.03.2013 and subsequent proceedings quashed
Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by the Court:
State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors. [(1992) Supp (1) SCC 335] — Guidelines for quashing criminal proceedings under certain categories.
Case Title: Ravi Shankar Dubey vs. State of Bihar & Anr.
Case Number: Criminal Miscellaneous No. 16400 of 2016
Citation(s): 2024(4) PLJR 566
Coram and Names of Judges: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha
Names of Advocates:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Mukesh Kant, Advocate
For the State: Mr. Md. Arif, APP
For Opposite Party No. 2: Mr. Lokesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
Link to the Judgment:
https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NiMxNjQwMCMyMDE2IzEjTg==-yuICWm4stLg=
0 Comments