KRISHNA LAL CHAWLA & ORS. versus STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

Citation: [2021] 2 S.C.R. 550 · Decided: 08-03-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR · Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 10 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
550
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 2 S.C.R.
KRISHNA LAL CHAWLA & ORS.
v.
STATE OF U.P. & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 283 of 2021)
MARCH 08, 2021
[MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR AND
R. SUBHASH REDDY JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
s. 482 – Complaint u/s. 200 Cr.P.C – Alleging offences u/ss.
323, 504, 506, 429 IPC and ss.10 and 11 of Prevention of Cruelty
to Animals Act, 1960 – Lodged by respondent No. 2, against the
appellants, in the year 2018, in respect of an incident that occurred
in the year 2012 – Magistrate issued process against the appellants
– Confirmed by Sessions Judge – Appellants’ petition for quashing
the orders of Magistrate and the Sessions Judge dismissed – Appeal
to Supreme Court – Held: In the complaint in question, the
complainant (respondent No. 2) had suppressed the material fact
that a charge-sheet was already filed u/ss. 323, 325, 504 and 506
IPC against him and his wife in relation to the same incident –
Institution of fresh complaint was a concerted effort to mislead the
Court with the oblique motive to harass the appellants – conduct of
respondent No. 2 in filing delayed complaint case, suppressing
material facts and utilizing the fresh proceedings to materially
improve on his earlier version, amounts to gross abuse of the process
of the Court – Permitting multiple complaints by the same party in
respect of same incident would run counter to the principles
envisaged u/Art.21 of the Constitution i.e. right to life and liberty
and right to speedy trial – In exercise of inherent powers u/Art. 142
of the Constitution, in order to prevent abuse of process of the Court,
the criminal proceedings against the appellants are quashed – All
other litigations between the parties arising out of the incident in
question, are also quashed – Constitution of India – Arts.21 and
142.
Administration of Criminal Justice:
Role of lower judiciary – The trial Judge has a duty under
the Constitution and Cr.P.C. to identify and dispose of frivolous
litigation at an early stage.
[2021] 2 S.C.R. 550
550
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
551
Judiciary:
Justice delivery system – Should not be used as a tool to fulfill
personal vendetta – Frivolous litigations by misusing PIL jurisdiction
or by abusing criminal procedure should not become order of the
day.
Constitution of India:
Art. 21 – Right to speedy trial – Would include not only the
actual trial, but also the preceding stages of inquiry and police
investigation as well.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Any further complaint by the same complainant
against the same accused, after the case has already been
registered, will be deemed to be an improvement from the
original complaint. [Para 5][561-D-E]
Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash & Ors. (2004) 13 SCC
292 – relied on
1.2 Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees that the right
to life and liberty shall not be taken away except by due process
of law. Permitting multiple complaints by the same party in respect
of the same incident, whether it involves a cognizable or private
complaint offence, will lead to the accused being entangled in
numerous criminal proceedings. As such, he would be forced to
keep surrendering his liberty and precious time before the police
and the Courts, as and when required in each case. Such an absurd
and mischievous interpretation of the provisions of the CrPC
will not stand the test of constitutional scrutiny, and therefore
cannot be adopted. [Para 6][562-D-E]
T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala (2001) 6 SCC 181 : [2001]
3 SCR 942; Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI & Anr.
(2013) 6 SCC 348 : [2013] 6 SCR 623 – relied on
1.3 Thus, it is incumbent upon this Court to preserve the
delicate balance between the power to investigate offences under
the CrPC, and the fundamental right of the individual to be free
from frivolous and repetitive criminal prosecutions forced upon
him by the might of the State. [Para 7][563-B-C]
KRISHNA LAL CHAWLA v. STATE OF U.P. 
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
552
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 2 S.C.R.
1.4 If Respondent No. 2 was aggrieved by lack of speedy
investigation in the earlier case filed by him, the appropriate
remedy would have been to apply to the Magistrate under Section
155(2), CrPC for directions to the police in this regard. Filing a
private complaint without any prelude, after a gap of six years
from the date of giving information to the police, smacks of mala
fide on the part of Respondent No. 2. [Para 7][563-C-D]
1.5 It is also crucial to note that, in the fresh complaint
case,

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.