RAVINDER SINGH versus SUKHBIR SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [2013] 1 S.C.R. 243 · Decided: 11-01-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 1 S.C.R. 243 
RAVINDER SINGH 
v. 
SUKHBIR SINGH & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 2013} 
JANUARY 11, 2013 
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
A 
B 
s.482 - Quashing of criminal proceedings - Contempt c 
petition for filing two criminal writ petitions on same facts and 
for same relief - High Court closed the proceedings -
Criminal complaint u/s 3(1)(viii) of 1989 Act filed for filing the 
said two criminal writ petitions - Held: High Court in contempt 
petition has dealt with the issue involved and the matter stood 
0 
closed at the instance of complainant himself - Therefore, 
there can be no justification whatsoever to launch criminal 
prosecution on that basis afresh - Inherent power of court in 
dealing with an extraordinary situation is in the larger interest 
of administration of justice and for preventing manifest 
injustice being done -Thus, it is a judicial obligation on court 
E 
to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice and to 
prevent continuation of unnecessary judicial process - It may 
be so necessary to curb the menace of such criminal 
prosecution - Complaint filed u/s 3(1)(viii) of 1989 Act is 
quashed -
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes 
F 
(Prevention of Attrocities) Act, 1989 - s.3(1)(viii) - Code of 
Criminal Procoedure, 1898 - s. 403(2). 
CRIMINAL LAW: 
G 
Issued estoppel -
Explained -
Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1898 - s.403(2). 
Scheduled Cast~s and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of 
atrocities) Act, '1989: 
243 
H 
244 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013) 1 S.C.R. 
A 
s.3(1)(viii) - Prosecution for filing of false, malicious or 
vexatious or criminal or other legal proceedings -
Expressions, 'false', 'malafides' and 'vexatious - Connotation 
of - Held: Merely because the victim/complainant belongs to 
a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, the same cannot be 
B the sole ground for prosecution, for the reasott that the offence 
mentioned under the Act should be committed against him 
on the basis of the fact that such a person belongs to a 
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe - An unsuccessful 
application for the purpose of quashing the FIR lodged by 
c complainant does not mean that a false case was filed against 
him. 
The appellant was arrested in connection with FIR 
No. 25412005 for offences punishable ulss 427, 447 and 
506 read with s.34 IPC filed by respondent no. 1. On his 
D release on bail, he engaged respondent no.2 as his 
advocate and filed W. P. (Crl.) No. 1667 of 2005, inter alia, 
seeking to quash FIR No. 25412005. It was the case of the 
appellant that he was the owner and in possession of 1 
bigha and 4 biswas of agricultural land with regard to 
E which respondent no. 1 made an attempt to take forcible 
possession and also filed the criminal case. The said writ 
petition was dismissed. However, final report u/ss.173 
and 169 CrPC was submitted in the court in FIR No. 254; 
and the claim of respondent no.1 for inclusion of his 
F name in revenue records as a person in possession/ 
occupation was also rejected. Thereafter, W. P. (Crl.) No. 
2657/2006 came to be filed by respondent no. 2 in the 
name of the appellant, containing the same averments as 
made in the first writ petition and seeking the same relief. 
G This writ petition was dismissed in default. Thereafter 
respondent no.1 filed Contempt Case (Crl.) No. 10/2007 
before the High Court against the appellant for filing the 
said two criminal writ petitions. The appellant filed a reply 
expressing his ignorance regarding the filing of the 
H second criminal writ petition. Respondent no. 2 also 
RAVINDER SINGH v. SUKHBIR SINGH & ORS. 
245 
tendered an unconditional apology. The High Court A 
accepted the version of the appellant and the apology of 
respondent no.2 and, by order dated 16.02.2009, closed 
the criminal proceedings. Respondent no.1 then filed a 
criminal complaint u/s 3(1)(viii) of the Scheduled Castes 
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities) Act, 1989 
B 
against the appellant for filing the said two criminal writ 
petitions. The Metropolitan Magistrate by his order dated 
13.08.2009 dismissed the complaint. However, the 
revision of respondent no. 1 was allowed. The petition of 
the appellant u/s. 482 CrPC seeking to quash the criminal c 
complaint having been dismissed by the High Court, he 
filed the appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 In Masumsha Hasanasha Musa/man's case, 
D 
this Court has held that merely becaus
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.