Uttarakhand HC Allows Petition for Quashing Proceeding Due to Malafide Action 

Must Read

Bombay High Court Passes Order To Clarify and Modify Previous Order When State of Maharashtra Moved Praecipe

Division Bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice Shrikant D. Kulkarni had passed...

The European Court of Human Rights Orders Germany To Pay Non-Pecuniary Damages for Prison Strip-Searches 

A serving German prisoner was repeatedly stripped searched for non-legitimate purposes. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found...

Lack of Independent Witness Doesn’t Vitiate Conviction: Supreme Court

A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Dhiman v State of Himachal Pradesh clarified the law in...

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi,...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent...

Supreme Court Stays Order Restraining Physical Campaigns in the Madhya Pradesh Bye-Elections

On the 26th of October, a Bench was set up which comprised Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, and...

Follow us

On 12th August 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ravindra Maithani, heard the case of Smt. Madhu Thapa v. Rajesh Kumar Vats.

A petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Power of court to quash criminal proceedings) was filed by the petitioner for quashing the order pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner had filed an application under Section 156 (3) of the CrPC (Power of Magistrate to investigate cognizable case) alleging that the son of the respondent, had taken money from her under the promise of securing a job for her brother. 

The Respondent filed an application in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Laksar, District Haridwar which claimed that the petitioner and her son demanded Rs.1,50,000/- from the respondent for securing a job to his son.

But, the petitioner neither secured the job nor returned the money. When contacted, the petitioner asked the account number of the son of the respondent and deposited various amounts in his account. But the total amount was not returned by her. Therefore, the application was moved for investigation.

After investigation, the police closed the matter on the grounds that earlier, the petitioner had filed an application under Section 156 (3) of the Code, against the son of the respondent, which was rejected, as it did not disclose any cognizable offence.

Thereafter, the petitioner filed an Original Suit which was pending. The Investigating Officer concluded that for the same subject matter, two cases should not proceed simultaneously and accordingly, closed the investigation.

In 2013, the court summoned the petitioner and others to answer accusations under IPC Sec 406 (Punishment for Criminal Breach), Sec 420 (Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), Sec 506 (Punishment for criminal intimidation). It is this order and proceeding of the case which are under challenge.

Contentions of the Petitioner

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that an application under Section 156 (3) of the Code was filed by the petitioner in 2011 on the ground that the son of the respondent had taken various amounts from her for securing a job to her brother, but he neither secured the job nor returned the money. It was argued that as a counterblast to it, the respondent filed an application under Section 156 (3) of the Code against the petitioner, and therefore the action of the respondent was mala fide.

In support of this contention, learned counsel placed reliance upon the principles of law, as laid down in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, and Ahmad Ali Quraishi and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2020) SCC Online Supreme Court 107.

Contentions of the Respondent

Learned senior counsel for the respondent contended that the application under Section 156 (3) of the Code was filed by the petitioner on 23.11.2011 and the original suit was filed by her on 08.08.2012. The respondent filed an application under Section 156 (3) of the Code on 05.06.2012. Learned senior counsel argued that till then the respondent had no information about any action that was taken by the petitioner against him. Therefore, it was argued that it was not a case of counterblast.

Learned senior counsel further argued that on behalf of the petitioner no error was indicated in the impugned order, therefore, it was not a case that may warrant any interference under Section 482 of the Code.

The Counsel for the respondent further argued that the pendency of a civil case is no impediment to proceed with the criminal case, and gave reference to H.S. Bains vs. State, (1980) 4 SCC 631.

Court’s Observation

The Respondent at the time of examination knew that a civil suit was pending between his son and the petitioner on the same subject matter, but not a single word was stated by the respondent about the civil suit. 

The fact that the respondent and his son concealed reflects that their action was to inflict vengeance. It reflects that the action of the respondent was malafide.

Court’s Decision

The Court held that the summoning order as well entire proceedings were entitled to be quashed. Accordingly, the Court was of the view that the petition deserved to be allowed.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Bombay High Court Passes Order To Clarify and Modify Previous Order When State of Maharashtra Moved Praecipe

Division Bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice Shrikant D. Kulkarni had passed an Order on 25th October...

The European Court of Human Rights Orders Germany To Pay Non-Pecuniary Damages for Prison Strip-Searches 

A serving German prisoner was repeatedly stripped searched for non-legitimate purposes. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found that Germany had violated the...

Lack of Independent Witness Doesn’t Vitiate Conviction: Supreme Court

A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Dhiman v State of Himachal Pradesh clarified the law in case of lack of independent...

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi, called for records of the...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent on immigrants to comply with. Background The...

Supreme Court Stays Order Restraining Physical Campaigns in the Madhya Pradesh Bye-Elections

On the 26th of October, a Bench was set up which comprised Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, and Justice Sanjiv Khanna. They heard...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention order of the husband of...

Supreme Court Asks Petitioner to Approach Bombay High Court in PIL for CBI Probe in Disha Salian Case

On the 26th of October 2020, the Apex Court heard the PIL praying for a CBI probe into the death of Disha Salian. The...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions, as well as shareholder disputes...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by P. Sankar & V. Sobana....

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -