CHANCHALPATI DASversusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.

                          [2023] 6 S.C.R. 655                             655


                      CHANCHALPATI DAS                                    A
                                  v.
             THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.
                 (Criminal Appeal No. 1592 of 2023)
                            MAY 18, 2023                                  B
       [AJAY RASTOGI AND BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.]
       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – FIR and charge-sheet –
Quashing of – FIR was registered against appellant-accused u/ss.
468, 471, 406 and 120-B of IPC – Appellant-accused claim                  C
themselves to be spiritual leaders and are related to a religious/
spiritual society – It was alleged that appellant-accused had
committed theft as well as criminal breach of trust in respect of a
bus – Appellant-accused sought quashing of the criminal
proceedings – High Court dismissed the criminal revisions – On
appeal, held: As per the case of the complainant, the alleged incident    D
of bus theft had taken place in the year 2001, and it was only in
2009 that the substantial complaint was made in the Court of CJM
– No concrete action was taken with regard to the alleged theft of
bus for a long period of eight years, till filing of complaint in the
year 2009 – There is no substantial material or document produced         E
by the complainant to substantiate the allegations against the
appellants – Even after investigation, there was no evidence collected
by the investigating officer to prima facie satisfy ingredients of
alleged offences – Allegations made in the complaint and the charge-
sheet taken at their face value none of the ingredients of the offences   F
are made out – No expert opinion obtained or scientific evidence
collected on documents allegedly forged to show as to by whom,
when and how the theft of vehicle and forgery of documents were
committed – Respondent-complainant has misused and abused the
process of law to settle personal scores with the appellants – In the
facts and circumstances, criminal proceedings against the appellants      G
quashed.
      Administration of Justice – Abuse of process of any Court –
discussed.

                                                                          H
                                 655
656            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2023] 6 S.C.R.


A           Allowing the appeals, the Court
             HELD: 1. It is again pertinent to note that, even as per the
      case of the complainant, the alleged incident of bus theft had taken
      place in the year 2001, and it was only in 2009 that the substantial
      complaint was made in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate. It
B     is just not believable that the concerned Police Station, Kolkata
      would not have taken any action on the report made in 2002 on
      behalf of the powerful body like the religious/spiritual Society in
      Kolkata, or on the letter dated 30.09.2006 written by the Branch
      Manager of the Society, Kolkata. The respondent no. 2-
      complainant also did not take any concrete action for getting the
C     said complaint registered with regard to the alleged theft of bus
      for a long period of eight years, till the complaint in the Court
      was filed in the year 2009. In the opinion of the Court such an
      inordinate delay of eight years in filing the complaint in the court
      itself would be a sufficient ground to quash the proceedings. If
D     the luxury bus owned by the religious society, Kolkata Branch in
      1998 was so precious to them, they would not have sat silent for
      such a long time of eight years. In opinion of this Court, the
      criminal machinery set into motion by filing the complaint for the
      alleged incident which had taken place eight years ago, that act
      itself was nothing but a sheer misuse and abuse of the process of
E     the court. [Para 11][663-D-G]
            2. That apart, from the bare perusal of the complaint filed
      before the Court, on the basis of which the FIR was registered at
      the Police Station on 20th February, 2009, it is discernible that
      except bald allegations made in the complaint with regard to the
F     theft of bus in question there was no material or document
      produced by the complainant to substantiate the allegations
      against the appellants. Even after the investigation of the said
      complaint, there was no evidence collected by the investigating
      officer to prima facie satisfy the ingredients constituting the
G     alleged offences under Sections 468, 471, 406 and 120B of IPC.
      Even if the allegations made in the complaint as well as in the
      Chargesheet are taken at their face value none of the ingredients
      constituting the alleged offences are culled out. The Senior
      Counsel for the appellants had strenuously urged relying upon
      the documents pertaining to the transfer of ownership and
H
  CHANCHALPATI DAS v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL &                        657
                       ANR.

registration of the said bus, that the said documents were executed     A
by the then authorized persons of the religious society in Kolkata,
in opinion of this Court, the said documents could not be
considered in these proceedings, the same being not the part of
the charge-sheet papers. In any case, there is nothing to suggest
from the other documents on record of the instant appeals that
                                                                        B
the investigating officer had even bothered to collect any cogent
or substantive evidence against the appellants to prosecute them
for the alleged offences. There was no expert opinion obtained
or scientific evidence collected on the documents allegedly forged
to show as to by whom, when and how the theft of vehicle and
forgery of documents were committed. Under the circumstances,           C
allowing such prosecution to continue would not only be an empty
formality but would be gross wastage of court’s precious time.
[Para 12][663-G-H; 664-A-E]
      3. In the light of afore-stated legal position, if the facts of
the case are appreciated, there remains no shadow of doubt that         D
the complaint filed by the respondent-complainant after an
inordinate unexplained delay of eight years was nothing but sheer
misuse and abuse of the process of law to settle the personal
scores with the appellants, and that continuation of such malicious
prosecution would also be further abuse and misuse of process
of law, more particularly when neither the allegations made in          E
the complaint nor in the chargesheet, disclose any prima facie
case against the appellants. The allegations made against the
appellants are so absurd and improbable that no prudent person
can ever reach to a conclusion that there is a sufficient ground
for proceeding against the appellants-accused. [Para 17][666-F-         F
G]
      4. In view of this judgment, the other set of petitions filed
against the order of the High Court wherein the High Court
directed Judicial Magistrate to fix charge and conclude trial taking
recourse to s.309 Cr.P.C. do not survive and stand disposed of          G
accordingly. [Paras 1 and 2][668-D]
      Dalip Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
      (2010) 2 SCC 114 : [2009] 16 SCR 111; Subrata Roy
      Sahara vs. Union of India and Others (2014) 8 SCC
      470 : [2014] 12 SCR 573 – relied on.                              H
658            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2023] 6 S.C.R.


A           Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Maninder Singh
            (2016) 1 SCC 389 : [2015] 10 SCR 277; State of
            Gujarat Vs. Gajanand M. Dalwadi (Dead) by LRS.
            (2008) 1 SCC 716 : [2007] 13 SCR 913; Jasbir Singh
            vs. Tara Singh and Ors. (2016) 16 SCC 441 : [2015]
            10 SCR 61; Jagdish Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
B
            (2004) 4 SCC 432 : [2004] 2 SCR 846; Kaptan Singh
            Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2021) 9 SCC 35;
            Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Arvind Khanna
            (2019) 10 SCC 686 : [2019] 13 SCR 470; State of
            Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Ors. (1977) 2 SCC
C           699 : [1977] 3 SCR 113; State of A.P. Vs. Golconda
            Linga Swamy & Another (2004) 6 SCC 522 : [2004] 3
            Supp. SCR 147; Hasmukhlal D. Vora & Anr. vs. State
            of Tamil Nadu 2022 SCC Online SC 1732 – referred
            to.
D                           Case Law Reference
      [2015] 10 SCR 277              referred to             Para 9
      [2007] 13 SCR 913              referred to             Para 9
      [2015] 10 SCR 61               referred to             Para 9
E     [2004] 2 SCR 846               referred to             Para 9
      [2019] 13 SCR 470              referred to             Para 9
      [1977] 3 SCR 113               referred to             Para 13
      [2004] 3 Supp. SCR 147         referred to             Para 15
F     [2009] 16 SCR 111              relied on               Para 18
      [2014] 12 SCR 573              relied on               Para 19
           CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
      No.1592 of 2023.
G           From the Judgment and Order dated 17.02.2023 of the High Court
      at Calcutta in CRR No.4062 of 2022.
            With
            Criminal Appeal No.1593 Of 2023 And Slp (Crl.) Nos.4539 And
      4603 of 2023.
H
  CHANCHALPATI DAS v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL &                              659
                       ANR.

      Shyam Divan, Jaideep Gupta, Krishnan Venugopal, Soumya                  A
Chakraborty, Sr. Advs., Kartik Seth, Mrs. Shriya Gilhotra, Tarun Mehra,
Ms. Aakriti Vikas for M/s. Chambers of Kartik Seth, Prashant Bhushan,
Kuriakose Varghese, V Shyamohan, Ms. Aishwarya Hariharan, Martin
George, Ms. B. Vijayalakshmi Menon, Sanjeev Kaushik, Ms. Mantika
Haryani, Shreyas Awasthi, Somipam Mc, Ms. Muskan Surana, Ms. Astha
                                                                              B
Sharma, Ms. Sradhaxna Mudhrika, Martin G George for M/s. Kmnp
Law, Advs. for the appearing parties.
      The two Judgments of the Court were delivered by
      BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.
                                                                              C
      Leave granted.
       2. Both the appeals arise out of the common judgment and order
dated 22.03.2017 passed by the High Court at Kolkata in CRR No. 1490
of 2013 and CRR. No. 3307 of 2013 whereby the High Court has
dismissed both the Criminal Revision Applications seeking quashing of
the charge-sheet filed against the appellants-accused, in respect of the      D
FIR no. 33 of 2009 registered at Ballygunge Police Station, for the
offences under Sections 468, 471, 406 and 120-B of IPC. As transpiring
from the record, the appellant Madhu Pandit Das (accused no.1) is the
President of ISKCON, Bengaluru since 1984 and the appellant
Chanchalpati Das (accused no. 2) is the Vice President of ISKCON,             E
Bengaluru since 1985. Both of them claim to be the global spiritual leaders
and humanitarians. According to the appellants, the International Society
for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON), Bengaluru, is a society registered
in 1978 under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960.
       3. As per the case of the respondent-complainant on 30.09.2006,        F
a letter in the form of complaint was addressed to the officer in charge,
Ballygunge Police Station, Kolkata, by the General Manager, ISKCON,
Kolkata, in which it was alleged inter alia that the International Society
for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON), Mumbai is a Society registered
since 1971 under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and Bombay Public
Trust Act, 1950, having its registered office at Hare Krishna Land, Juhu,     G
Mumbai-49. The said Society has many branches/offices all over India
including one located at 3C, Albert Road, Kolkata- 700019. The Governing
Council of the said Society known as “Bureau” is the highest
administrative body. The said Bureau at the relevant time had entrusted
Sri Adridharan Das, who was the President of the said Kolkata Branch,         H
660             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 6 S.C.R.


A     with the management of the assets and properties situated at Kolkata
      Branch, which included a 42-seat deluxe bus of Ashok Leyland make,
      model Viking Alpsv 4/37-222 WB passenger bus, bearing registration
      no. WB25A-0454, engine No. WSH 104189, chassis No. WSH042296.
      The said bus used to be parked at the premises of Kolkata Branch.
B            4. It was further alleged that when the new management took
      over the management of the said branch at Kolkata, the said bus was
      not found in the premises of the said branch. Therefore, Sri Jagdartiha
      Das, one of the Managers wrote a letter dated 23rd November, 2001 to
      the Regional Transport Officer, Barasat, Kolkata not to issue any duplicate
      registration certificate, tax card etc. in respect of the said bus. It was
C     further stated in the said letter dated 30th September, 2006 that a report
      was also made to the police station on 22.05.2002, however subsequently
      they came to know that the said bus was in the illegal custody of Sri
      Madhu Pandit Das, residing at Hare Krishna HilIs, Rajaji Nagar,
      Bengaluru, Karnataka. It was also alleged that Mr. Adridharan Das had
D     entered into a criminal conspiracy with Mr. Madhu Pandit Das and others,
      and that Mr. Adridharan Das had committed theft as well as criminal
      breach of trust in respect of the said vehicle, which was taken to
      Bengaluru. It was also alleged that the original registration certificate of
      the said vehicle was lying at the Kolkata Branch, and that neither Mr.
      Adridharan Das nor Mr. Madhu Pandit Das or any other person had any
E     authority to get the said vehicle transferred to Bengaluru or to change
      the name of the registered owner of the said vehicle.
             5. It is further case of the respondent-complainant that since the
      Ballygunge Police Station had not taken notice of the said letter dated
      30.09.2006, the complainant Radha Raman Das, the Branch Manager
F     of ISKCON, Kolkata had filed a private complaint in the year 2009 in
      the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, against the accused Madhu
      Pandit Das, Chanchalpati Das, Mahajan Das and Adridharan Das seeking
      investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The said case was registered
      as criminal case no. 747 of 2009 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,
G     Alipore.
             6. It appears that the said Court Petition under Section 156(3) of
      Cr.P.C was registered as FIR being no. 33 at the Ballygunge Police
      Station on 20.02.2009 for the offences under Section 379/ 411/ 406/ 408/
      120-B/ 468/ 471 IPC. The investigating officer on the completion of
H     investigation submitted the charge-sheet being no. 58 in the court of
    CHANCHALPATI DAS v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL &                              661
              ANR. [BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.]

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore against the accused Madhu Pandit             A
Das, Chanchalpati Das, Mahajan Das and Adridharan Das, for the
offences under Section 468, 471, 406 and 120-B IPC on 23.10.2010.
       7. The appellant-accused Chanchalpati Das filed a petition being
CRR No. 1490 of 2013 and the appellant-accused Madhu Pandit Das
filed a petition being CRR No. 3307/2013 before the High Court of               B
Kolkata seeking quashing of proceedings of criminal case no. 747 of
2009 pending before the CJM, Alipore. The High Court vide the common
impugned judgement and order dismissed both the Criminal Revisions.
       8. The learned Senior Advocate Mr. Shyam Divan for the
appellants vehemently submitted that the prosecution initiated against          C
the appellants by the respondent-complainant was only an attempt to
harass the appellants under the guise of the bus theft case to settle the
personal scores with appellants, as the appellants were able to create
around 30 ISKCON/Hare Krishna Movement associated Centres under
the aegis of ISKCON Bengaluru, who follow the teachings of Srila
Prabhupada, by keeping him as the sole Diksha Acharya. He further               D
submitted that the allegations in the complaint/FIR are not only absurd
and improbable, but there is no reasonable possibility of the appellants
being convicted for the alleged offences after the trial. Relying upon the
documents with regard to the transfer of registration of the bus in question,
he submitted that the said bus was registered at Kolkata on 20.11.1998,         E
however thereafter was registered at Bengaluru on 22.05.2002 after
the execution of necessary documents of transfer and at present the bus
is lying in the dump yard at Vrindavan, Uttar Pradesh. According to him,
filing of an FIR in 2009 for the alleged theft of bus taken place in 2002,
was sheer abuse of process of law. Even the Investigating Officer has
failed to collect and produce any documents or evidence along with the          F
charge-sheet with regard to the alleged forgery and fabrication of
documents. Mr. Diwan has placed reliance on the decisions in State of
Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors.1, in G. Sagar Suri and
Anr. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.2, in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia
and Ors. Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and Ors.3, in Subal                 G
Ghorai and Ors. vs. State of West Bengal4 to buttress his submissions.
Lastly, he submitted that to put a quietus in the matter, the ISKCON
1
  1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335
2
  (2000) 2 SCC 636
3
  (1988) 1 SCC 692
4
  2013 (4) SCC 607                                                              H
662             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 6 S.C.R.


A     Bengaluru is ready and willing to purchase a latest model brand new
      Ashok Leyland bus in the name of ISKCON Kolkata directly.
             9. Per contra, learned Senior Advocate Mr. K. Venugopal
      appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2-complainant submitted that both
      the appellants have been charged by the respondent no. 1 State for the
B     offence under Sections 468, 471, 406 and 120-B IPC as per the final
      report submitted by the investigating officer and there being a prima
      facie case made out against the appellants, which even the High Court
      had recorded in the impugned order, this Court may not interfere with
      the same. According to him, the documents of registration produced by
      the appellants, claiming to have been received under the RTI from the
C     concerned Regional Transport Authority, Bengaluru, have been produced
      for the first time before this Court and the same could not be taken into
      consideration. He further submitted that the underlying complaint
      pertained to only one luxury bus in comparison to the huge business
      empire including real estate built by the appellant-accused, cannot detract
D     from, or minimise the gravity of the offences of forgery, cheating and
      breach of trust allegedly committed by the appellants. He also submitted
      that the proposal of appellants-accused to give a new bus to ISKCON
      Kolkata cannot be accepted, as the offences alleged against the appellants
      are not compoundable under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. Mr. Venugopal has
      placed reliance on the decisions in Central Bureau of Investigation
E     Vs. Maninder Singh5;State of Gujarat Vs. Gajanand M. Dalwadi
      (Dead) by LRS.6; Jasbir Singh vs. Tara Singh and Ors.7; Jagdish
      Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.8; Kaptan Singh Vs. State of Uttar
      Pradesh and Ors.9; Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Arvind
      Khanna10 in support of his submissions that the criminal proceedings
F     against the appellants may not be quashed.
            10. Having gone through the pleadings of the parties and the
      documents on record and having anxiously considered the submissions
      made by the learned counsel for the parties, it emerges that according to
      the complainant-respondent, a letter in the form of complaint was written
G     by the Branch Manager of the ISKCON Kolkata, on 30.09.2006
      5
        (2016) 1 SCC 389
      6
        (2008) 1 SCC 716
      7
        (2016) 16 SCC 441
      8
        (2004) 4 SCC 432
      9
        (2021) 9 SCC 35
H     10
         (2019) 10 SCC 686
  CHANCHALPATI DAS v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL &                                663
            ANR. [BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.]

addressed to the officer in-charge, Ballygunge Police Station, Kolkata,         A
in respect of an alleged theft of a bus having taken place in 2001, however,
no action was taken by the said police station. Though, the complainant
had reported the matter to the concerned Police Station earlier on 22nd
May, 2002, however, no action was taken in that regard. It is pertinent to
note that with regard to the said allegations against the concerned police
                                                                                B
station, there is nothing on record to suggest that either the said report
dated 22.05.2002 or the letter dated 30.09.2006 was ever received by
the concerned police station or any follow up action was taken by the
respondent-complainant in that regard. According to the respondent-
complainant, since no action was taken on the letter dated 30th September,
2006 written to the concerned Police Station, the complaint was lodged          C
in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore on 10th February, 2009,
which was registered as C.R. Case No. 747 of 2009, seeking investigation
under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.
        11. It is again pertinent to note that, even as per the case of the
complainant, the alleged incident of bus theft had taken place in the year      D
2001, and it was only in 2009 that the substantial complaint was made in
the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore. It is just not believable
that the concerned Ballygunge Police Station, Kolkata would not have
taken any action on the report made in 2002 on behalf of the powerful
body like the ISKCON Kolkata, or on the letter dated 30.09.2006 written
by the Branch Manager of the ISKCON, Kolkata. The respondent no.                E
2-complainant also did not take any concrete action for getting the said
complaint registered with regard to the alleged theft of bus for a long
period of eight years, till the complaint in the Court was filed in the year
2009. In the opinion of the Court such an inordinate delay of eight years
in filing the complaint in the court itself would be a sufficient ground to     F
quash the proceedings. If the luxury bus owned by the ISKCON, Kolkata
Branch in 1998 was so precious to them, they would not have sat silent
for such a long time of eight years. In our opinion, the criminal machinery
set into motion by filing the complaint for the alleged incident which had
taken place eight years ago, that act itself was nothing but a sheer misuse
and abuse of the process of the court.                                          G

       12. That apart, from the bare perusal of the complaint filed before
the Court, on the basis of which the FIR was registered at the Ballygunge
Police Station on 20th February, 2009, it is discernible that except bald
allegations made in the complaint with regard to the theft of bus in question
                                                                                H
664                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2023] 6 S.C.R.


A     there was no material or document produced by the complainant to
      substantiate the allegations against the appellants. Even after the
      investigation of the said complaint, there was no evidence collected by
      the investigating officer to prima facie satisfy the ingredients constituting
      the alleged offences under Sections 468, 471, 406 and 120B of IPC.
      Even if the allegations made in the complaint as well as in the Chargesheet
B
      are taken at their face value none of the ingredients constituting the
      alleged offences are culled out. The learned Senior Counsel Mr. Shyam
      Divan for the appellants had strenuously urged relying upon the documents
      pertaining to the transfer of ownership and registration of the said bus,
      that the said documents were executed by the then authorized persons
C     of the ISKCON Kolkata, in our opinion, the said documents could not be
      considered in these proceedings, the same being not the part of the
      charge-sheet papers. In any case, there is nothing to suggest from the
      other documents on record of the instant appeals that the investigating
      officer had even bothered to collect any cogent or substantive evidence
      against the appellants to prosecute them for the alleged offences. There
D
      was no expert opinion obtained or scientific evidence collected on the
      documents allegedly forged to show as to by whom, when and how the
      theft of vehicle and forgery of documents were committed. Under the
      circumstances, allowing such prosecution to continue would not only be
      an empty formality but would be gross wastage of court’s precious time.
E             13. It cannot be gainsaid that the High Courts have power to
      quash the proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
      to prevent the abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the
      ends of justice. Though the powers under Section 482 should be sparingly
      exercised and with great caution, the said powers ought to be exercised
F     if a clear case of abuse of process of law is made out by the accused. In
      the State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Ors.11 had held that
      the criminal proceedings could be quashed by the High Court under
      Section 482 if the court is of the opinion that allowing the proceedings to
      continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends
      of justice require that the proceedings are to be quashed.
G
             14. This Court, way back in 1992 in the landmark decision in case
      of State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors (Supra), after
      considering relevant provisions more particularly Section 482 of the
      Cr.P.C. and the principles of law enunciated by this Court relating to the
      11
H          (1977) 2 SCC 699
  CHANCHALPATI DAS v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL &                               665
            ANR. [BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.]

exercise of extra-ordinary powers under Article 226, had laid down certain     A
guidelines for the exercise of powers of quashing, which have been
followed in umpteen number of cases. The relevant part thereof reads
as under:
      “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant
      provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles           B
      of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to
      the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the
      inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have
      extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories
      of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be
      exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or         C
      otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible
      to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently
      channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give
      an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power
      should be exercised.                                                     D
      (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or
      the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and
      accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence
      or make out a case against the accused.
      (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other      E
      materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable
      offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section
      156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within
      the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
      (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or              F
      complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do
      not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case
      against the accused.
      (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable
      offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no                 G
      investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a
      Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
      (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so
      absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent
                                                                               H
666                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 6 S.C.R.


A               person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient
                ground for proceeding against the accused.
                (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the
                provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a
                criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance
B               of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in
                the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for
                the grievance of the aggrieved party.
                (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala
                fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
C               ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with
                a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”
            15. In State ofA.P. Vs. Golconda Linga Swamy & Another12
      this Court had observed that the Court would be justified to quash the
      proceedings if it finds that initiation or continuance of such proceedings
D     would amount to abuse of the process of Court.
             16. As regards inordinate delay in filing the complaint it has been
      recently observed by this Court in Hasmukhlal D. Vora & Anr. vs.
      State of Tamil Nadu13 that though inordinate delay in itself may not be
      a ground for quashing of a criminal complaint, however unexplained
E     inordinate delay must be taken into consideration as a very crucial factor
      and ground for quashing a criminal complaint.
             17. In the light of afore-stated legal position, if the facts of the
      case are appreciated, there remains no shadow of doubt that the complaint
      filed by the respondent-complainant after an inordinate unexplained delay
F     of eight years was nothing but sheer misuse and abuse of the process of
      law to settle the personal scores with the appellants, and that continuation
      of such malicious prosecution would also be further abuse and misuse of
      process of law, more particularly when neither the allegations made in
      the complaint nor in the chargesheet, disclose any prima facie case against
      the appellants. The allegations made against the appellants are so absurd
G     and improbable that no prudent person can ever reach to a conclusion
      that there is a sufficient ground for proceeding against the appellants-
      accused.

      12
           2004 (6) SCC 522
      13
           2022 SCC Online SC 1732
H
     CHANCHALPATI DAS v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL &                                 667
               ANR. [BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.]

       18. Before parting, a few observations made by this Court with               A
regard to the misuse and abuse of the process of law by filing false and
frivolous proceedings in the Courts need to be reproduced. In the Court.
In Dalip Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others14 it was observed
that:
          “1. For many centuries Indian society cherished two basic values          B
          of life i.e. “satya” (truth) and “ahimsa” (non-violence). Mahavir,
          Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain
          these values in their daily life. Truth constituted an integral part of
          the justice-delivery system which was in vogue in the pre-
          Independence era and the people used to feel proud to tell truth in
          the courts irrespective of the consequences. However, post-               C
          Independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system.
          The materialism has overshadowed the old ethos and the quest
          for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in
          litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood,
          misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court                   D
          proceedings.”
     19. In Subrata Roy Sahara vs. Union of India and Others15 it
was observed as under:
          “191. The Indian judicial system is grossly afflicted with frivolous
          litigation. Ways and means need to be evolved to deter litigants          E
          from their compulsive obsession towards senseless and ill-
          considered claims.”
       20. We would like to add that just as bad coins drive out good
coins from circulation, bad cases drive out good cases from being heard
on time. Because of the proliferation of frivolous cases in the courts, the         F
real and genuine cases have to take a backseat and are not being heard
for years together. The party who initiates and continues a frivolous,
irresponsible and senseless litigation or who abuses the process of the
court must be saddled with exemplary cost, so that others may deter to
follow such course. The matter should be viewed more seriously when                 G
people who claim themselves and project themselves to be the global
spiritual leaders, engage themselves into such kind of frivolous litigations
and use the court proceedings as a platform to settle their personal scores
or to nurture their personal ego.
14
     (2010) 2 SCC 114
15
     (2014) 8 SCC 470                                                               H
668                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2023] 6 S.C.R.


A           21. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present
      case and for the reasons stated hereinabove, we deem it appropriate to
      quash the criminal proceedings pending against the appellants in the Court
      of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, arising out of the FIR No. 33 of
      2009 registered at Ballygunge Police Station, and quash the same.
B            22. The appeals stand allowed, with cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- which
      shall be deposited by the respondent-complainant in the office of the
      Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association.
            BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.
              1. Both the petitions arise out of the order dated 17.02.2023 passed
C     by the High Court at Kolkata in CRR 4062 of 2022 whereby the High
      Court has directed the concerned Judicial Magistrate at Alipore to
      specifically fix the date for consideration of the charge within one month
      from the date of communication of order and further to conclude the
      trial within ten months taking recourse to the provision contained in Section
D     309 of Cr.P.C.
            2. In view of the judgment passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal
      No. 1592 of 2023 (@ SLP (CRL.) NO. 6688 OF 2017) & Criminal
      Appeal No. 1593 of 2023 (@SLP (CRL.) NO. 6689 OF 2017), the
      present petitions do not survive and stand disposed of accordingly.
E
      Ankit Gyan                               Appeals allowed and petitions disposed of.




F




G




H