Facts. — Appellants purchased/held title to a parcel of land (sale deed 2020; vendor’s title traceable to 2014). On 25.01.2022 the informant (a member of a Scheduled Caste) filed a civil suit seeking reliefs including recovery of possession and, on the same date, an FIR was registered alleging that appellants had (i) fabricated documents to dispossess the informant and (ii) on 21.01.2022 had come to the land and started building a boundary wall and that two accused hurled caste-based abuses. The High Court refused to quash the FIR. On appeal to this Court the FIR was quashed.
Held. — Quashed FIR No.18 of 2022 (P.S. Kanke, Ranchi) and directed no further police proceedings against the accused named therein.
Points of decision / reasoning.
-
A criminal prosecution is not to be used as a tool for abuse of process; when the First Information Statement (FIS) and contemporaneous civil pleadings on the same date are inconsistent in material particulars, the criminal case may be prima facie shown to be mala fide or an abuse.
-
The plaint filed by the informant on the same date traced cause of action to earlier dates (Sept. 2020 — Dec. 2021) and made no reference to the alleged occurrence of 21.01.2022 as narrated in the FIS; that inconsistency undermines the truth of the FIS at the stage of considering quashing.
-
On the record the land was held under a sale deed in favour of the first appellant (2020) and the earlier title of the vendors was recorded (order of Deputy Collector, 2012); there was no pleading in the civil suit to set aside those sale deeds — hence there was no prima facie allegation of wrongful dispossession under Section 3(1)(g) SC/ST (PoA) Act.
-
The allegation of a casteist slur did not, on the material before the Court, raise an offence under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act because there was no averment that the slur was made in public view or in presence of the public (required to attract that provision on the facts).
-
In the totality of circumstances the FIR constituted an abuse of process; the High Court should have exercised its power to quash the FIR at the threshold.
Ratio decidendi.
-
Where contemporaneous documents (e.g., plaint filed the same day) are materially inconsistent with the allegations in the First Information Statement, and those inconsistencies demonstrate that the criminal complaint is manifestly untenable or mala fide, a court exercising jurisdiction under its inherent/quashing powers may set aside the FIR to prevent abuse of the criminal process.
-
A prima facie case for an offence under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — e.g., wrongful dispossession (s.3(1)(g)) or a casteist slur attracting s.3(1)(s) — must be shown on the record; if the pleadings and documents on file do not support the essential ingredients (e.g., dispossession, public character of abuse), the FIR may be quashed.
-
The coexistence of civil and criminal remedies does not preclude quashing of criminal proceedings where the criminal complaint is an evident misuse of process; the power to quash is appropriately exercised where prosecution is shown to be vexatious, mala fide or unsupported by even prima facie material.
Result. — Appeal allowed; FIR quashed; no order as to costs stated (Court directed that police take no further proceedings pursuant to the quashed FIR).
