Lucknow, Jul 23 The Allahabad High Court held on Thursday that when a criminal complaint is found to be a clear abuse of the judicial process, the high court can invoke its inherent powers under Article 215 of the Constitution and section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to quash the entire proceedings on its own motion.
The Lucknow bench of the court asserted that its duty extends beyond adjudicating disputes to preventing a misuse of the criminal justice system.
Justice Subhash Vidyarthi held that the complaint appeared to have been filed only to put pressure on the accused into paying an alleged outstanding amount.
Allowing such proceedings to continue, the judge said, would amount to an abuse of the process of law and an unnecessary waste of judicial time.
The order was passed on a criminal appeal filed by a woman from Lakhimpur Kheri district in Uttar Pradesh.
She had challenged a special judge's order passed under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, whereby her application under section 173(4) of the BNSS, seeking the registration of an FIR, was treated as a complaint instead.
During the hearing, exercising its inherent jurisdiction suo motu (on its own), the high court not only set aside the trial court's order, but also quashed the entire complaint proceedings.
The woman had alleged that during a dispute over the sale of a plot of land, one of the accused sexually exploited her on the pretext of helping her recover money owed to her husband.
She had also expressed apprehension that the accused might harm her husband and child.
However, a police report placed before the trial court had said the land dispute was already settled and the money refunded, leading to the submission of a final report.
The high court found the allegations to be inherently improbable and contrary to ordinary human conduct.
It noted that the complaint contained no allegation of force, coercion or deception that could prima facie constitute a criminal offence.
The court also found the claim that a signed chequebook was accidentally left behind at the accused's house to be implausible.
It further observed that the complaint disclosed no offence under the SC-ST Act.
