State of Himachal Pradesh vs Naval Thakur

Bhawani Singh, J.—The State of Himachal Pradesh, approaches this Court, by this petition Under Sections 397, 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code) for quashing two orders dated June 6, 1986 and June 23, 1986 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu.

The facts, in brief, are that Naval Thakur (hereinafter to be referred to as the respondent and the State as petitioner) filed a complaint u/s 153-A, 295-A, 298, 447, 420 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, against S. Buta Singh, Union Home Minister, Govt. of India, and Sh. Vir Bhadra Singh, Chief Minister, Himachal Pradesh on 4-6-1986.

The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, to whom this complaint was assigned by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, on 4-6-1986 recorded the statement of the respondent u/s 200 of the Code and on the same day sent copy thereof to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Kullu, for holding an enquiry u/s 202 of the Code and submit a report on 23-6-1986. It appears from the record that the Magistrate ultimately decided to hold the enquiry himself u/s 202 of the Code and ordered summoning of witnesses for 16-7-1986 after taking cognizance.

Sh. M.S. Guleria, Asstt. Advocate General, appearing for the State of Himachal Pradesh has strenuously contended that the Magistrate can take cognizance of any offence committed upon receiving a complaint mentioning therein the facts which constitute the offence but he cannot proceed in the matter if the complaint does not disclose commission of any offence. Reference is made to the complaint and the statement given by the respondent. It is further asserted that the sole object of the respondent is to harass and humiliate these dignitaries and gain undue publicity by this act of blackmail which should not have been permitted by the Court. These proceedings, initiated with an oblique motive, as submitted above, asserts Sh. Guleria, amount to gross misuse of the process of the Court. To highlight his submissions and to demonstrate that the respondent is in the habit of filing such like complaints reference is made to the statement at page 16 of the file which describes eighty-four cases filed by the respondent against number of dignitaries from time to time and dismissed by the Courts.

The broad facts of the complaint can be summarised thus :

On 22-5-1986, while the complainant was present at Manikaran, Shri Buta Singh, Union Home Minister, inaugurated and presided over a function for the laying of a foundation stone of a bridge proposed to be constructed near the Gurudwara at Manikaran said to be a historical place. There is already a bridge constructed by the Government and the bridge to be constructed is on government land encroached upon by one community. The sole object of both Shri Buta Singh and Shri Vir Bhadra Singh was to injure the feelings of the communities and this has seriously injured the feelings of the respondent a staunch Sanatanist and it is no part of their official duty to commit any offence and they claim to be representatives of a secular State. The nature of this offence is such that it does not give them any protection u/s 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

This is the essence of the complaint. Rest are all statements which are thoroughly bereft of any purpose whatsoever.

A perusal of the offences included by the respondent for initiating the present complaint, if seen in the light of the contents of his complaint and his statement in the Court, leaves no manner of doubt that no offence can be said to have been committed as alleged. Laying of a foundation stone of a bridge by the Home Minister, may be at or near the Gurudwara, does not amount to the commission of the offences as alleged. It is normal and necessary part of the multifarious duties of a Union Home Minister and the Chief Minister of a State. They can be called upon to do such like and many other kinds of duties every now and then, irrespective of their status and religions, whenever requested to do so. No resentment or ill feeling should be entertained by anyone; nor does it amount to doing anything which is prohibited by these provisions of law.

It appear, the respondent by some unique sense of self-aggrandisement initiated this matter under these provisions. Perusal of the statement, at page 16 of the file, makes a surprising reading. I notice that the respondent has filed complaints against number of government officials including judges posted at the place. There are complaint against late Dr. Y.S. Parmar, formar Chief Minister, Himachal Pradesh, Shri Devi Singh, former Forest Minister, Shri Sukh Ram, former Public Works Department Minister and at present Union Minister of State for Civil Supplies, Hon''ble Mr. Justice Tatachari, former Lokayukta, Himachal Pradesh, Shri Ram Lal Thakur, former Chief Minister, Sh. Sat Mahajan, Revenue Minister, Himachal Pradesh, Shri Vir Bhadra Singh, Chief Minister of Himachal Pradesh, Hon''ble Mr. V.D. Misra, former Chief Justice of High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Mr. Roop Singh, the then Sessions Judge, Mandi, and later on Judge of this High Court and from Director General of Police to constables. All these complaints are stated to have been dismissed by the Courts subsequently.

In this view of the matter, there is substance in the submissions of the learned Assistant Advocate General and I am of the considered opinion that the sole purpose of the respondent has been and is to blackmail these dignitaries and harass and intimidate other officials for no rhyme or reason which cannot be permitted by a court of law. It is thoroughly a lame prosecution which cannot be allowed to be perpetuated and if so allowed, people will lose their faith in the institution of the Courts. The courts will also render themselves to be used by such like persons who will fritter away its time otherwise meant for bona fide and genuine litigants. While examining the scope of Section 482 of the new Code, which correspondents to Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Chief Justice Chandrachud, speaking for the Court in State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Others, observed in para 7 of the judgment as under:

".........In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it 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 proceeding ought to be quashed........."

In my opinion, it is a fit case where these observations of the apex Court can be kept in mind for quashing the proceedings pending before the trying Magistrate in this case to immediately prohibit anyone, the complainant in the present case, from fanning communal feelings baselessly in a nation where people are living from generations in a cool and lovable atmosphere.Shri M.S. Guleria, learned Assistant Advocate General, refers to Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy and Others Vs. V. Narayana Reddy and Others, and urges that the Magistrate should not have taken cognizance of the matter as no offence is made out from the complaint and the statement of the complainant.

Further Shri M.S. Guleria, makes reference to Dr. Sharda Prasad Sinha Vs. State of Bihar, wherein his Lordship, Bhagwati, J. speaking for the Court, said in para 2 of the judgment as under :

"It is now settled law that where the allegations set out in the complaint or the charge-sheet do not constitute any offence, it is competent to the High Court exercising its inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the order passed by the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence......."

Further reference is made to Krishna Sadan Ghosh Vs. Govind Prasad Saraf, Saraf where the learned Judge of Patna high Court, Ranchi Bench, Justice Hyder observed in para 12 as under :

".......However, as I have already pointed out that there was no material before the Magistrate on the basis of which he could issue processes against the applicant to stand his trial for the offence punishable u/s 500 of the Penal Code. When speaking of the materials on record I am referring to the prima facie evidence which existed before the learned Magistrate when he issued processes against the applicant."

Further the Court said in para 13 of the judgment as under :

"In my opinion, it will be gross abuse of the process of the Court if the applicant is made to stand his trial for the offence punishable u/s 500 of the Penal Code on the basis of the facts stated above. The entire criminal proceedings against the applicant for the offence punishable u/s 500 of the Penal Code has, therefore, to be quashed."

The proposition canvassed by Shri M.S. Guleria, learned Assistant Advocate General, cannot be doubted. The position by this time is well established by catena of cases throwing guidance in such like cases. The crux of the principle is that the act of the complainant must not amount to abuse of the process of the Court by initiating a complaint which does not at all constitute any offence and the Magistrate has to apply his mind whether there is sufficient cause or ground to take cognizance of the offence, He has to exercise sound judicial discretion and apply his mind to the facts and evidence before him. It is a very fundamental function. A person''s liberty is curtailed. He is put to lot of mental tension in facing such an action which may ultimately be dismissed by the same court. Any slackness on his part can jeopardize and harm the person against whom a reckless and baseless action is taken.

I see that the Magistrate has approached this matter routinely and casually. Neither the complaint nor the statement of the complainant has been seriously seen and examined by the Magistrate before proceeding further in the matter.

One more fact needs to be noticed. The Magistrate has not even cared to see whether it was necessary to look for a sanction Under Sections 196 and 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which further evidences the haste with which the Magistrate has moved.

The sum total of the examination of the case is that the complaint is thoroughly frivolous. It does not disclose commission of any of the offences alleged by the complainant. The result is the proceedings initiated by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, are hereby quashed and set aside.