The court quashed a criminal complaint registered 16 years after the alleged transaction, holding that unexplained inordinate delay amounts to abuse of process of law and results in miscarriage of justice.
Criminal Petition allowed; Impugned crime No.44 of 2024 stands quashed qua the petitioners.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:38403 CRL.P No. 7572 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7572 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
ARAKKAL KOOTTINATAKAYIL S/O ARAKKAL VETTATH AHMED KUTTY AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT PUDUMANASSERY PAVARATTY P. O., PAVARATTY THRISSUR KERALA – 680 507.
Digitally signed by KAVYA G Location: High Court of Karnataka
(BY SRI H N SHASHIDHARA, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI PAVAN A, ADVOCATE)
…PETITIONERS
AND:
NC: 2024:KHC:38403 CRL.P No. 7572 of 2024
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI THEJESH P., HCGP FOR R1; SRI VINAYAK KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF THE CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE SAID FIR AND COMPLAINT DTD 20.03.2024 REGISTERED BY THE MALLESHWARAM POLICE STATION CR.NO.44/2024, FOR THE OFFENSES P/U/S 420, 406, 120-B, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 3rd ACMM COURT, BENGALURU CITY, VIDE ANNEXURE A AND B.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
Petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 3 are before this Court calling in question registration of a crime in crime No.44 of 2024 registered for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 120B, 506 r/w Section 34 of the IPC.
NC: 2024:KHC:38403 CRL.P No. 7572 of 2024
The 2nd respondent and the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 3 and along with accused No.2 are said to have had a transaction, in furtherance of which, an amount of Rs.6,30,00,000/- is alleged to have been paid by the complainant to these petitioners, on various dates. The transaction freezes in the year 2008, as the last date of the said transaction is on 08-11-2008. The complainant, 16 years thereafter, appears to have realized that he has parted with Rs.6,30,00,000/- in the year 2008, rushes to the jurisdictional police and registers a crime on 20-03-2024 which becomes a crime in Crime No.44 of 2024 for the afore-quoted offences. The registration of the crime has driven accused Nos.1 and 3 to this Court in the subject petition.
complainant would vehemently refute the submission contending that the petitioner himself has accepted in the averment of the petition that the transaction between the two had happened in the year 2008. He would therefore contend that all the money is received by the petitioners themselves and submit that it is a matter of investigation and therefore, the investigation should be permitted in the case at hand. He would seek to place reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of NEEHARIKA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported in (2021)19 SCC 401 .
| “…..Rs.2,40,00, 05.06.2008, |
000/- on 01.06.20 Rs.1,20,00,000/- |
08, Rs.60,00,000/- on on 05.07.2008, |
|---|---|---|
| Rs.60,00,000/- | on 25.07.2008, |
Rs.60,00,000/- on |
| 15.07.2008, | Rs.40,00,000/- | on 05.09.2008, |
| Rs.40,00,000/- Rs.6,30,00,000/ |
on08.11.2008 - in installments.” |
totally amounting to |
(Emphasis added)
The last of the transaction is on 08-11-2008. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent has placed certain documents on record
to demonstrate that all the cheques were either issued to the
Company, or by way of cash, the amounts are handed over to the petitioners. The transaction sheet that the complainant encloses to the documents communicated to the Managing Director of the Trans Gulf Technical Services, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates is dated 10-11-2008. Therefore, all the transactions between the two freeze in the month of November 2008. The complainant appears to have gone into deep slumber for close to 16 years, wakes up from slumber realizes the fact that he has lent Rs.6,30,00,000/- to the petitioners, rushes to the jurisdictional police and registers a complaint which becomes a crime in Crime No.44 of 2024.
complainant is that the petitioners themselves have admitted the transaction between the two in the year 2008 with particular reference to paragraph 18 of the petition, which reads as follows:
“18. That the alleged transaction was in the year 2008 and after that the Petitioners and Respondent No.2 are not doing any business together and is not in contact with these Petitioners from then and out of the blue, the Respondent No.2 has filed a complaint against the Petitioners in the year 2024. ”
The averment in the petition cannot create a right to the complainant, which at all times he has lost due to sheer delay. The delay is unexplained. There is no speck of satisfactory explanation to the delay in registering the crime. The delay is not 1, 2 or 5 years, it is 16 years. A delay of 16 years in registering the complaint would undoubtedly vitiate the very registration of the complaint. The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of NEEHARIKA supra wherein the Apex Court lays down 15 postulates for interference at the stage of crime does not bar this Court to consider where there is gross delay in registering the complaint, and therefore permitting such complaints would definitely result in miscarriage of justice.
“13. It cannot be gainsaid that the High Courts have power to quash the proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. to prevent the abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure
1 2023 SCC OnLine SC 650
the ends of justice. Though the powers under Section 482 should be sparingly exercised and with great caution, the said powers ought to be exercised if a clear case of abuse of process of law is made out by the accused. In the State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy had held that the criminal proceedings could be quashed by the High Court under Section 482 if the court is of the opinion that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings are to be quashed.
14. This Court, way back in 1992 in the landmark decision in case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (Supra), after considering relevant provisions more particularly Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. and the principles of law enunciated by this Court relating to the exercise of extra-ordinary powers under Article 226, had laid down certain guidelines for the exercise of powers of quashing, which have been followed in umpteen number of cases. The relevant part thereof reads as under:
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the
NC: 2024:KHC:38403 CRL.P No. 7572 of 2024
FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”
15. In State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy this Court had observed that the Court would be justified to quash the proceedings if it finds that initiation or continuance of such proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court.
16. As regards inordinate delay in filing the complaint it has been recently observed by this Court in Hasmukhlal D. Vora v. State of Tamil Nadu that though inordinate delay in itself may not be a ground for quashing of a criminal complaint, however unexplained inordinate delay
must be taken into consideration as a very crucial factor and ground for quashing a criminal complaint.
17. In the light of afore-stated legal position, if the facts of the case are appreciated, there remains no shadow of doubt that the complaint filed by the respondent-complainant after an inordinate unexplained delay of eight years was nothing but sheer misuse and abuse of the process of law to settle the personal scores with the appellants, and that continuation of such malicious prosecution would also be further abuse and misuse of process of law, more particularly when neither the allegations made in the complaint nor in the chargesheet, disclose any prima facie case against the appellants. The allegations made against the appellants are so absurd and improbable that no prudent person can ever reach to a conclusion that there is a sufficient ground for proceeding against the appellants-accused.
18. Before parting, a few observations made by this Court with regard to the misuse and abuse of the process of law by filing false and frivolous proceedings in the Courts need to be reproduced. In the Court. In Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh it was observed that:
“1. For many centuries Indian society cherished two basic values of life i.e. “satya” (truth) and “ahimsa” (non-violence). Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these values in their daily life. Truth constituted an integral part of the justicedelivery system which was in vogue in the preIndependence era and the people used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts irrespective of the consequences. However, post-Independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. The materialism has overshadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings.”
19. In Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India it was observed as under:
“191. The Indian judicial system is grossly afflicted with frivolous litigation. Ways and means need to be evolved to deter litigants from their compulsive obsession towards senseless and ill-considered claims.”
20. We would like to add that just as bad coins drive out good coins from circulation, bad cases drive out good cases from being heard on time. Because of the proliferation of frivolous cases in the courts, the real and genuine cases have to take a backseat and are not being heard for years together. The party who initiates and continues a frivolous, irresponsible and senseless litigation or who abuses the process of the court must be saddled with exemplary cost, so that others may deter to follow such course. The matter should be viewed more seriously when people who claim themselves and project themselves to be the global spiritual leaders, engage themselves into such kind of frivolous litigations and use the court proceedings as a platform to settle their personal scores or to nurture their personal ego.
21. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case and for the reasons stated hereinabove, we deem it appropriate to quash the criminal proceedings pending against the appellants in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, arising out of the FIR No. 33 of 2009 registered at Ballygunge Police Station, and quash the same.”
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court has delineated that the delay caused in registering the complaint would undoubtedly become fatal to the case of the complainant, unless there is plausible explanation for such delay.
NC: 2024:KHC:38403 CRL.P No. 7572 of 2024
ORDER
(i) Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) Impugned crime registered in Crime No.44 of 2024 dated 20-03-2024 pending on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru stands quashed qua the petitioners.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE
BKP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a criminal complaint regarding financial offences registered after an unexplained delay of 16 years constitutes an abuse of court process warranting quashing.
Whether inordinate and unexplained delay vitiates the registration of a crime under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Neehrika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of MaharashtraReferred¶34
(2021)19 SCC 401 · Who else cites this
Chanchalpati Das v. State of West BengalFollowed¶52
2023 SCC OnLine SC 650 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri Mohamed Asharaf Arakkal Koottinatakayil
Sri Saleem Arakkal Kootintakayil
State by Malleishwaram P. S., Bengaluru
Sri Cleetus Francis
M. Nagaprashanna
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
