SRI GULAM MUSTAFA versus THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.

Citation: [2023] 5 S.C.R. 354 · Decided: 10-05-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DINESH MAHESHWARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 11 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
354
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 5 S.C.R.
[2023] 5 S.C.R. 354
354
SRI GULAM MUSTAFA
v.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1452 of 2023)
MAY 10, 2023
[DINESH MAHESHWARI AND
AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.]
Administration of Justice –Abuse of Process of Law – Civil
dispute relating to land given the colour of criminality – Held: There
is a huge unexplained delay of over 60 years in initiating dispute
with regard to the ownership of the land in question – Criminal
case was lodged only after failure to obtain relief in the civil suits
coupled with denial of interim relief to the respondent no.2/her
family members – Thus, criminal proceedings were resorted to with
ulterior motives, for oblique reasons and vengeance – Further, even
if the allegations are taken on their face value, no offence is made
out under the SC/ST Act against the appellant – The complaint and
FIR are frivolous, vexatious and oppressive – High Court fell in
error in not invoking its wholesome power u/s.482, CrPC to quash
the FIR – Impugned judgment set aside – FIR and any proceedings
emanating therefrom, relating to the appellant are quashed – Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Penal Code,
1860.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Quashing of
FIR – Scope of – Discussed.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Quashing of
FIR under special statute – Held: The mere fact that the offence is
covered under a ‘special statute’ would not inhibit Supreme Court
or the High Court from exercising their respective powers u/Article
142 or s.482, CrPC – Constitution of India – Article 142 – Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Administration of Justice – Administration of Criminal Justice
– FIR – Invocation of provision of stringent statutes – Duty of officers
– Held: Officers who institute an FIR, based on any complaint, are
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
355
duty bound to be vigilant before invoking any provision of a very
stringent statute, like the SC/ST Act, which imposes serious penal
consequences on the concerned accused – Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 –Criminal Law.
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
Held: 1.1 The mere fact that the offense is covered under
a ‘special statute’ would not inhibit this Court or the High Court
from exercising their respective powers under Article 142 of the
Constitution or Section 482 of the Code. [Para 34][369-C-D]
1.2 The FIR need not be a detailed one, as it is only to
initiate the investigative process and the police should ordinarily
be allowed to investigate. This is the general rule, but not a fetter
on this Court or the High Court in an appropriate case. [Para
35][370-D-E]
Superintendent of Police CBI v Tapan Kumar Singh,
(2003) 6 SCC 175 : [2003] 3 SCR 485; State of Uttar
Pradesh v Naresh, (2011) 4 SCC 324 : [2011] 4 SCR
1176 – relied on.
1.3 This Court has been consistent in interfering in such
matters where purely civil disputes, more often than not, relating
to land and/or money are given the colour of criminality, only for
the purposes of exerting extra-judicial pressure on the party
concerned, which is nothing but abuse of the process of the court.
In the present case, there is a huge and unexplained delay of
over 60 years in initiating dispute with regard to the ownership
of the land in question, and the criminal case has been lodged
only after failure to obtain relief in the civil suits, coupled with
denial of relief in the interim therein to the respondent no.2/her
family members. It is evident that resort was now being had to
criminal proceedings which, in the considered opinion of this
Court, is with ulterior motives, for oblique reasons and is a clear
case of vengeance. Even if the allegations are taken to be true
on their face value, it is not discernible that any offence can be
said to have been made out under the SC/ST Act against the
appellant. The complaint and FIR are frivolous, vexatious and
oppressive. [Paras 36, 37][370-E-H]
SRI GULAM MUSTAFA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
356
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 5 S.C.R.
1.4 The officers, who institute an FIR, based on any
complaint, are duty bound to be vigilant before invoking any
provision of a very stringent statute, like the SC/ST Act, which
imposes serious penal consequences on the concerned accused.
The officer has to be satisfied that the provision

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