Role of the Lower Judiciary in Preventing Abuse of Court Process:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 283 OF 2021
(arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 6432/2020)
KRISHNA LAL CHAWLA & ORS. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. & ANR. RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.
Role of the Lower Judiciary in Preventing Abuse of Court
Process:
11. We find it imperative to observe that this is a case that
should not have been allowed to reach as far as this Court. The
justice dispensation machinery in India is plagued with backlogs,
with 70% of the pendency before the subordinate courts being on
the criminal side.1
A significant factor in this backlog is the vast
mass of frivolous litigation instituted year after year by litigants
with an intent to use the courts of justice for their own
mischievous ends. Curtailing such vexatious litigation is, thus, a
crucial step towards a more effective justice system a step that
cannot be taken without the active involvement of the lower
judiciary, especially in criminal proceedings.
12. Immediately after the criminal justice system is set in
motion, its course is almost entirely dependent on the judicial
application of mind by the Magistrate. When a police complaint is
1 Roshni Sinha, Examining pendency of cases in the Judiciary, PRS INDIA
(August 8, 2019).
16
filed on the commission of a cognizable offence under Section 154
CrPC, the Magistrate decides if the charge against the accused
person is made out before the trial begins. Separate procedure is
prescribed if the complaint under Section 200 CrPC is filed. The
aforesaid provisions make it abundantly clear that the Magistrate
carries the stream of criminal proceeding forward after it is set in
motion by the informant/complainant. Consequently, and
automatically, the Magistrate also carries the responsibility for
ensuring this stream does not carry forward in cases where it
should not.
13. The aforesaid powers bestowed on the Magistrate have grave
repercussions on individual citizens life and liberty. Thus, these
powers also confer great responsibility on the shoulders of the
Magistrate and must be exercised with great caution, and after
suitable judicial application of mind. Observations in a similar
vein were made by this Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special
Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749:
28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a
serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion
as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant
has to bring only two witnesses to support his
allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law
17
set into motion. The order of the Magistrate
summoning the accused must reflect that he has
applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law
applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of
allegations made in the complaint and the evidence
both oral and documentary in support thereof and
would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed
in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that
the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of
recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of
the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise
the evidence brought on record and may even himself
put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to
elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the
allegations or otherwise and then examine if any
offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the
accused.
(emphasis supplied)
This Court, thus, clearly emphasised that the power to issue
a summoning order is a matter of grave importance, and that the
Magistrate must only allow criminal law to take its course after
satisfying himself that there is a real case to be made.
14. Similarly, the power conferred on the Magistrate under
Section 202, CrPC to postpone the issue of process pursuant to a
private complaint also provides an important avenue for filtering
out of frivolous complaints that must be fully exercised. A fourJudge Bench of this Court has eloquently expounded on this in
Chandra Deo Singh v. Prokash Chandra Bose & Anr., AIR
1963 SC 1430:
18
7. No doubt, one of the objects behind the
provisions of Section 202 CrPC is to enable the
Magistrate to scrutinise carefully the allegations made
in the complaint with a view to prevent a person
named therein as accused from being called upon to
face an obviously frivolous complaint. But there is also
another object behind this provision and it is to find
out what material there is to support the allegations
made in the complaint. It is the bounden duty of the
Magistrate while making an enquiry to elicit all facts
not merely with a view to protect the interests of an
absent accused person, but also with a view to bring to
book a person or persons against whom grave
allegations are made. Whether the complaint is
frivolous or not has, at that stage, necessarily to be
determined on the basis of the material placed before
him by the complainant...
(emphasis supplied)
Thus, it is clear that, on receipt of a private complaint, the
Magistrate must first, scrutinise it to examine if the allegations
made in the private complaint, inter alia, smack of an instance of
frivolous litigation; and second, examine and elicit the material
that supports the case of the complainant.
15. It is said that every trial is a voyage of discovery in which the
truth is the quest. In India, typically, the Judge is not actively
involved in factfinding owing to the adversarial nature of our
justice system. However, Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872 by providing the Judge with the power to order production
of material and put forth questions of any form at any time,
19
marks the influence of inquisitorial processes in our legal system.
This wideranging power further demonstrates the central role
played by the Magistrate in the quest for justice and truth in
criminal proceedings, and must be judiciously employed to stem
the flow of frivolous litigation.
16. All of this leads to one inescapable conclusion. That the Trial
Judge has a duty under the Constitution and the CrPC, to
identify and dispose of frivolous litigation at an early stage by
exercising, substantially and to the fullest extent, the powers
conferred on him. This Court has earlier emphasised on the high
degree of responsibility shouldered by the trial Judges in All
India Judges Association v. Union of India, (1992) 1 SCC
119. Ranganath Misra CJ (as he was then) writing for himself
and two others stated:
42. The trial Judge is the kingpin in the hierarchical
system of administration of justice. He directly comes
in contact with the litigant during the proceedings in
Court. On him lies the responsibility of building up of
the case appropriately and on his understanding of the
matter the cause of justice is first answered. The
personality, knowledge, judicial restraint, capacity to
maintain dignity are the additional aspects which go
into making the Court's functioning successful.
20
17. Frivolous litigation should not become the order of the day in
India. From misusing the Public Interest Litigation jurisdiction of
the Indian courts to abusing the criminal procedure for harassing
their adversaries, the justice delivery system should not be used
as a tool to fulfil personal vendetta. The Indian judiciary has
taken cognizance of this issue. In 2014, this Court elucidated as
follows, the plight of a litigant caught in the cobweb of frivolous
proceedings in Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India, (2014) 8
SCC 470:
191One needs to keep in mind, that in the process
of litigation, there is an innocent sufferer on the other
side, of every irresponsible and senseless claim. He
suffers long drawn anxious periods of nervousness and
restlessness, whilst the litigation is pending, without
any fault on his part. He pays for the litigation, from
out of his savings (or out of his borrowings), worrying
that the other side may trick him into defeat, for no
fault of his. He spends invaluable time briefing counsel
and preparing them for his claim. Time which he
should have spent at work, or with his family, is lost,
for no fault of his...
While the Courts ruling pertained to civil proceedings, these
observations ring true for the criminal justice machinery as well.
We note, with regret, that 7 years hence, and there has still been
no reduction in such plight. A falsely accused person not only
suffers monetary damages but is exposed to disrepute and stigma
21
from society. While running from pillar to post to find a lawyer to
represent his case and arranging finances to defend himself
before the court of law, he loses a part of himself.
18. As aforesaid, the trial courts and the Magistrates have an
important role in curbing this injustice. They are the first lines of
defence for both the integrity of the criminal justice system, and
the harassed and distraught litigant. We are of the considered
opinion that the trial courts have the power to not merely decide
on acquittal or conviction of the accused person after the trial,
but also the duty to nip frivolous litigations in the bud even
before they reach the stage of trial by discharging the accused in
fit cases. This would not only save judicial time that comes at the
cost of public money, but would also protect the right to liberty
that every person is entitled to under Article 21 of the
Constitution. In this context, the trial Judges have as much, if
not more, responsibility in safeguarding the fundamental rights
of the citizens of India as the highest court of this land.
19. As recorded by us above, the present controversy poses a
typical example of frivolous litigants abusing court process to
achieve their mischievous ends. In the case before us, the
22
Magistrate was aware of the significant delay in the filing of
private complaint by Respondent No. 2, and of the material
improvements from the earlier NCR No. 158/2012 which were
made in the private complaint. It was incumbent on the
Magistrate to examine any possibility of abuse of process of the
court, make further enquiries, and dismiss the frivolous
complaint at the outset after judicial application of mind.
20. However, this was not done the Magistrate issued process
against the Appellants by order dated 4.04.2019, and this
controversy has now reached this Court for disposal.
21. It is a settled canon of law that this Court has inherent
powers to prevent the abuse of its own processes, that this Court
shall not suffer a litigant utilising the institution of justice for
unjust means. Thus, it would be only proper for this Court to
deny any relief to a litigant who attempts to pollute the stream of
justice by coming to it with his unclean hands. Similarly, a
litigant pursuing frivolous and vexatious proceedings cannot
claim unlimited right upon court time and public money to
achieve his ends.
23
22. This Courts inherent powers under Article 142 of the
Constitution to do complete justice empowers us to give
preference to equity and a justiceoriented approach over the
strict rigours of procedural law (State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih
(Whitewasher), (2014) 8 SCC 883). This Court has used this
inherent power to quash criminal proceedings where the
proceedings are instituted with an oblique motive, or on
manufactured evidence (Monica Kumar (Dr.) & anr. v. State of
Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 8 SCC 781). Other decisions have held
that inherent powers of High Courts provided in Section 482,
CrPC may be utilised to quash criminal proceedings instituted
after great delay, or with vengeful or malafide motives. (Sirajul
& ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 9 SCC 201; State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SCC 604). Thus, it is the
constitutional duty of this Court to quash criminal proceedings
that were instituted by misleading the court and abusing its
processes of law, only with a view to harass the hapless litigants.
23. In this Courts quest for complete justice, and to bring peace
between the parties, who are fighting various litigations since
24
2006, we exercise our powers under Article 142 to quash all the
litigations between the parties arising out of this incident.