Allahabad High Court Quashes Proceedings in Virendra Tiwari Case, Citing Malicious Intent
High Court exercises inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of judicial process
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has quashed the proceedings in the case of Sumitra Tiwari v. Virendra Tiwari and Others, citing malicious intent and abuse of judicial process. The judgment, delivered by Justice Brij Raj Singh, underscores the application of the principles laid down in the landmark State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal case, which provides grounds for quashing proceedings that are manifestly attended with mala fide intentions.
The application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) was filed by Virendra Tiwari and others, seeking to quash the proceedings initiated by Sumitra Tiwari. The complaint against the applicants was lodged following FIRs filed against the complainant's husband and brother-in-laws, which accused them of molesting a minor and attacking police personnel.
Justice Singh observed that the complaint by Sumitra Tiwari was filed as a counter-blast to these FIRs, with the intent to exert pressure and settle personal scores. The Court noted the failure of the complainant to disclose material facts about the FIRs lodged against her side, indicating a mala fide intention behind the proceedings.
In his judgment, Justice Singh cited the Bhajan Lal case, which provides categories where inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised. This includes scenarios where a criminal proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive. The Court emphasized that the inherent powers of the High Court are aimed at preventing abuse of the judicial process and securing the ends of justice.
Furthermore, the judgment criticized the summoning order issued by the Magistrate, highlighting the necessity for judicial officers to apply their minds diligently and consider all attending circumstances before summoning accused individuals. This reflects the principles laid down in the Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate case, where the Supreme Court stressed the importance of scrutinizing evidence and allegations before initiating criminal proceedings.
The judgment also referred to the Priyanka Srivastava v. State of UP case, where the Supreme Court mandated that applications under Section 156(3) CrPC should be supported by affidavits to prevent frivolous litigation. This reinforces the need for complainants to approach the judiciary with clean hands and truthful disclosures.
The ruling marks a pivotal moment in ensuring that judicial processes are not misused for personal vendettas, safeguarding the integrity of the legal system. By quashing the proceedings, the Allahabad High Court has set a precedent for thwarting attempts to manipulate legal proceedings for malicious purposes.
Bottom Line:
Application under Section 482 CrPC allowed - Complaint lodged out of mala fide intention and vengeance - Proceedings quashed in view of principles laid down in Bhajan Lal case.
Statutory provision(s):
- - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482
- - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sections 200 and 202
- - Sections 323, 336, 354, 504, 506 IPC
- - Sections 7/8 of POCSO Act
Virendra Tiwari v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(Lucknow) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2794858
