Criminal courts must not serve as tools for personal vendettas : Rajasthan High Court in a Family Dispute Case
In a recent legal development, a case involving allegations of fraud, breach of trust, and conspiracy has raised significant questions about the judicial application of Section 175(3) of the BNSS, 2023. This case, originating from a family dispute, demonstrates the complexities of balancing judicial independence, procedural fairness, and the prevention of misuse of legal provisions.
This article delves into the key aspects of the judgment, the submissions made by both parties, the legal principles involved, and the implications of the court’s decision.
Background of the Case
The complainant, Kamla Devi, alleged that her daughter, granddaughter, and son-in-law committed fraud involving money, gold, and silver given as part of a financial transaction. She claimed that despite submitting complaints to the Kotegate Police Station and the Superintendent of Police, no case was registered, leading her to file a complaint under Section 175(3) BNSS before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM).
The CJM directed the registration of an FIR under Sections 61, 316(2), and 318(4) BNSS, relying on a police inquiry report. The complainant alleged that the accused defrauded her by breaching a property agreement. However, the petitioners argued that the dispute was purely civil, arising from a property transaction, and that the allegations were false and malicious.
Key Legal Submissions
Arguments by the Petitioners:
False Allegations: The petitioners contended that the allegations were baseless and fabricated to harass them and tarnish their reputation.
Civil Dispute: They argued that the dispute stemmed from a property agreement dated 04.09.2020, which the complainant breached by selling the property to a third party.
Malicious Intent: The petitioners claimed that the complainant misused the criminal justice system to settle personal scores after the property transaction did not work in her favor.
Delay in Filing FIR: The FIR, filed in 2024 for events starting in 2021, was characterized as an afterthought to harass the petitioners.
Arguments by the Public Prosecutor:
The Public Prosecutor maintained that the investigation was ongoing and that the judicial process would ensure justice, either by filing a charge sheet if evidence was found or a negative final report if the allegations were unsubstantiated.
Judicial Analysis
The court analyzed the CJM’s order, the role of Section 175(3) BNSS, and the broader principles established by higher judicial authorities:
Section 175(3) BNSS: This provision empowers magistrates to order an investigation into cognizable offenses based on police reports or affidavits. However, the court emphasized that magistrates must exercise judicial mind and independently assess the material presented.
CJM’s Order: The court noted that the CJM mechanically accepted the police inquiry report without critically analyzing the facts or ensuring procedural fairness. The lack of detailed reasoning raised concerns about judicial oversight.
Supreme Court Precedent: Referring to Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the court highlighted the need for affidavits supporting Section 175(3) BNSS applications to ensure accountability and prevent misuse. Judicial officers were cautioned against rubber-stamping police findings.
Key Observations by the Court
Nature of the Dispute: The court opined that the allegations stemmed from a civil dispute involving property transactions rather than criminal intent.
Delay in Filing FIR: The unexplained delay raised doubts about the credibility of the allegations.
Misuse of Legal Provisions: The court expressed concern over the complainant’s attempt to misuse criminal proceedings to settle personal disputes.
Judicial Vigilance: Emphasizing judicial vigilance, the court criticized the mechanical acceptance of police findings and underscored the need for independent judicial scrutiny.
Implications of the Judgment
The judgment reinforces the following principles:
Preventing Judicial Overreach: Magistrates must ensure procedural rigor before directing the registration of FIRs, particularly in cases involving civil disputes.
Safeguarding Against Frivolous Complaints: Affidavits and preliminary inquiries serve as safeguards against misuse of legal provisions for malicious purposes.
Balancing Justice and Fairness: While ensuring access to justice for genuine grievances, the judiciary must prevent the criminal justice system from being weaponized for personal vendettas.
Conclusion
This case underscores the importance of judicial diligence and adherence to established legal principles in handling complaints under Section 175(3) BNSS. By scrutinizing the complainant’s motives and the procedural lapses, the court highlighted the need for a balanced approach that upholds justice while preventing misuse of the law.
As the legal system evolves, judgments like these serve as vital reminders for judicial officers and litigants to maintain the sanctity of legal processes and ensure fairness in the pursuit of justice.