Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a Police Sub-Inspector, filed a Criminal Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of an order dated 9th July 2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Margao, and the judgment dated 23rd September 2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao, which had allowed an application under Sections 155 and 156 Cr.P.C. filed by the third respondent, Peter Luis, directing the police to register a complaint against the petitioner for offences under Sections 341, 506, 337, 182 and 211 read with Section 34 IPC. The background facts reveal that on 26th November 2012, the petitioner was on night patrolling duty when he noticed two persons near a motorcycle at odd hours. On suspicion, he questioned them, and they attempted to flee but were apprehended. They became aggressive and abusive, and a third person arrived claiming to be the brother of one of them. All three charged at the petitioner, pushed him, and fled when additional police arrived. An FIR was lodged against the three persons. On 27th November 2012, the third respondent and others sought and obtained anticipatory bail from the Sessions Court on 30th November 2012. Thereafter, on 4th December 2012, the third respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner alleging the same incident but claiming that the petitioner had wrongfully restrained, threatened, and assaulted him. The Magistrate directed the police to register the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., and the Sessions Judge upheld that order in revision. The High Court, after hearing arguments, held that the complaint was a clear abuse of process of law, filed as a counterblast to the FIR lodged by the petitioner and after the accused had obtained anticipatory bail. The court noted that the allegations in the complaint were vague and did not make out any offence, and the direction to register the complaint was without application of mind. The High Court quashed both the orders and allowed the petition, thereby preventing harassment of the police officer in discharge of his duties.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Inherent Powers - Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Quashing of Proceedings - The High Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to quash orders directing registration of a complaint against a police officer, holding that the complaint was a counterblast to the FIR lodged by the officer and was filed with malafide intent to harass him in discharge of his official duties. (Paras 1-10)
B) Criminal Procedure Code - Direction to Register FIR - Sections 155 and 156 Cr.P.C. - The Magistrate and Sessions Judge erred in directing registration of a complaint without considering that the complaint was frivolous and an abuse of process, as the alleged offences were not made out and the complaint was filed after the accused persons were granted anticipatory bail in the cross-case. (Paras 5-9)
C) Indian Penal Code - Offences Against Public Servant - Sections 182 and 211 IPC - The complaint alleging false information and false charge against a police officer was not sustainable as the officer had acted in good faith during patrolling duty and the complaint was a retaliatory measure. (Paras 6-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the orders passed by the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge directing registration of a complaint against a police officer for alleged offences under Sections 341, 506, 337, 182 and 211 IPC were liable to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as an abuse of the process of law.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the Criminal Application and quashed the order dated 9th July 2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Margao in Criminal Misc. Application No.990/2012/D and the judgment dated 23rd September 2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao in Criminal Revision Application No.80/2013/I.
Law Points
- Section 482 Cr.P.C. inherent powers
- abuse of process of court
- malicious prosecution
- quashing of criminal proceedings
- Sections 155 and 156 Cr.P.C. direction to register FIR
- police officer's immunity from frivolous complaints
Case Details
Criminal Application (Main) No. 71 of 2017
Shantanu S. Kemkar, Nutan D. Sardessai
Mr. Ryan Menezes for Petitioner, Mr. S.R. Rivonkar, Public Prosecutor for Respondents No.1 & 2
The State of Goa, The Police Inspector, Maina Curtorim Police Station, Peter Luis
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of orders directing registration of a complaint against a police officer.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner, a Police Sub-Inspector, sought quashing of the Magistrate's order dated 9th July 2013 and the Sessions Judge's order dated 23rd September 2016 which directed registration of a complaint against him.
Filing Reason
The petitioner contended that the complaint was a counterblast to the FIR lodged by him and was filed with malafide intent to harass him in discharge of his official duties, amounting to abuse of process of court.
Previous Decisions
The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Margao, by order dated 9th July 2013 in Criminal Misc. Application No.990/2012/D, allowed the application under Sections 155 and 156 Cr.P.C. and directed the police to register the complaint. The Additional Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao, by judgment dated 23rd September 2016 in Criminal Revision Application No.80/2013/I, upheld that order.
Issues
Whether the orders directing registration of a complaint against a police officer under Sections 155 and 156 Cr.P.C. were liable to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as an abuse of process?
Whether the complaint was a counterblast to the FIR and filed with malafide intent?
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the complaint was a counterblast to the FIR lodged by him and was filed after the accused obtained anticipatory bail, with the sole intent to harass him.
The respondents (State and Police Inspector) supported the orders, but the third respondent did not appear despite service.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court held that the complaint was a clear abuse of process of law, filed as a counterblast to the FIR lodged by the petitioner and after the accused had obtained anticipatory bail. The allegations in the complaint were vague and did not make out any offence, and the direction to register the complaint was without application of mind. Therefore, the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. were invoked to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.
Judgment Excerpts
This Criminal Misc. Application (Main) has been filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 for quashing and setting aside the Order dated 9th July 2013...
The Petitioner, at the relevant time, was working as a Police Sub-Inspector at Maina-Curtorim Police Station.
An FIR was lodged qua the incident against the said three persons...
On 27th November 2012, the third respondent Peter Luis, Ronson Luis and Francisco Rebello sought pre-arrest bail...
The complaint was a clear abuse of process of law, filed as a counterblast to the FIR lodged by the petitioner.
Procedural History
The petitioner, a Police Sub-Inspector, lodged an FIR on 26th November 2012 against three persons including the third respondent. On 27th November 2012, the third respondent and others sought anticipatory bail, which was granted on 30th November 2012. On 4th December 2012, the third respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Margao, by order dated 9th July 2013 in Criminal Misc. Application No.990/2012/D, allowed the application under Sections 155 and 156 Cr.P.C. and directed the police to register the complaint. The petitioner challenged this order in Criminal Revision Application No.80/2013/I before the Additional Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao, who dismissed the revision by judgment dated 23rd September 2016. The petitioner then filed the present Criminal Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court of Bombay at Goa, which was allowed on 5th January 2018.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): 155, 156, 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 341, 506, 337, 182, 211, 34
