LexCHANDRAN RATNASWAMI versus K.C. PALANISAMY AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 17 S.C.R. 853 . CHANDRAN RATNASWAMI v. K.C. PALANISAMY AND OTHERS (Civil Appeal No. 4540 of 2013) MAY 09, 2013 [P. SATHASIVAM AND M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.] B Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 136 & 142 - Quashing of criminal proceedings, when warranted - Bar on . trial when abuse of process of court - Duty and· obligation of C the criminal court to exercise great deal of caution in issuing process, particularly when matters are essentially of civil nature - Held: In the instant case, neither the High Court nor the Magisterial Court ever applied their mind and considered the conduct of the complainant and continuance of criminal D proceedings in respect of the disp1.1tes, which were civil in . nature and finaily adjudicated by the competent authority i.e . . c the Company Law Board and the High Court in appeal - The complainant indulged in repeated harassment of the accused persons by initiating multiple criminal proceedings in order E to distract attention from his own misdeeds - The complainant manipulated and misused the process of Court so as to deprive the accused party from their basic right to move free anywhere im~ide or outside the country - It would be unfair if the accused were to be tried in such criminal proceedings. F arising out of alleged breach of a Joint Venture Agreement especially when such disputes have been finally resolved by the Court of competent jurisdiction - Hence, a/lowjng the criminal proceedings to continue would be an abuse -of the . process of the Court and, therefore, for the ends of justice G such proceedings ought to be quashed - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482. Investigation - In Cognizable offence - Power of Police 85.3 H 854 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 17 S.C.R. A Officers - Held: Is not unlimited - Power during investigation must be exercised strictly within the limitation prescribed in CrPC and such power may not result in destroying the personal freedom of a citizen - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. B Disputes between the parties with regard to alleged breach of a Joint Venture Agreement were finally adjudicated by the Company Law Board which order was upheld by the High Court in appeal. However, instead of C complying with the order of the Company Law Board and the directions issued by the High Court, the judgment- debtor in the decision of the Company Law Board i.e. respondent no.1 in civil appeal arising out of S.L.P (C) N!>.13120 of 2013 filed a series of criminal complaints 0 against the appella~~ therein. It is alleged that the criminal cases filed by the said respondent no.1 were frivolous, which were either quashed or stayed by the Court; that a purely civil matter arising out of a company dispute which had attained E finality had been given the colour of a criminal act with the sole objective of avoiding civil liability and pressurizing and harassing the said appellant; and that the conduct of said respondent no.1 was contemptuous amounting to deliberate obstruction of the judicial F proceedings and an abuse of the process of the Court. In the instant appeals, the question which, therefore, arose for consideration was whether continuance of criminal proceedings against the said appellant was an abuse of the process of the Court, and thus liable to be G quashed. H Disposing of the appeals and the contempt petition, the Court HELD:1.1. The doctrine of abuse of process of court CHANDRAN RATNASWAMI v. K.C. PALANISAMY 855 and the remedy of refusal to allow the trial to proceed is A well-established and recognized doctrine both by the English courts and courts in India. There are some established principles of law which bar the trial when there appears to be abuse of process of court. [Para 29] [886-E-F] B 1.2. An abuse of process justifying the stay of prosecution could arise in the following circumstances: (i) where it would be impossible to give the accused a fair trial; or (ii) where it would amount to misuse/manipulation C of process because it offends the court's sense of justice and propriety to be asked to try the accused in the circumstances of the particular case. [Para 31] [887-C-E] 1.3. The wholesome power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. entitles the High Court to quash a proceeding when it D comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to ·~· continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the procee
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.