Chapra- In a significant ruling delivered on May 12, the Patna High Court has quashed an entire criminal prosecution under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and IPC sections against a family from Jaipur, Rajasthan, observing that the case was a “vexatious, frivolous and malicious complaint” instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance.

Justice Anil Kumar Sinha allowed the Criminal Appeal filed by Ankit Kumar Sharma, his father Shailendra Kumar Sharma, brother Abhinesh Kumar Sharma, and sister Shalini Sharma, setting aside the cognizance order dated September 27, 2023, passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Saran at Chapra. The court held that continuing the prosecution would result in a miscarriage of justice and constitute an abuse of the process of law.

The case originated from Garkha P.S. Case No. 298 of 2020, lodged by informant Kalawati Devi, a caretaker in the house of late Ram Singh at Mahmadpur village. According to the FIR, on the date of occurrence, the appellants along with others allegedly arrived from Vaishali, abused the informant by her caste name, assaulted her, dragged her by the hair, tore her saree, and threatened her with a pistol to vacate the house. The charge sheet was submitted under Sections 341, 323, 354, 504, 506 read with 34 of the IPC and Sections 3(r)(s)(w) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.

Senior Advocate Chitranjan Sinha, appearing for the appellants, strongly contended that the case was a clear counterblast. He highlighted that appellant Shalini Sharma had married Manish Kumar, son of late Ram Singh, in June 2019. Due to matrimonial disputes, Shalini had filed a complaint under Section 498A and other provisions at Mahila Police Station, Jaipur, on January 20, 2020, against her husband and in-laws for dowry harassment. The present FIR was allegedly engineered at the behest of Manish Kumar and his mother to pressure and harass Shalini’s family.

The appellants asserted they were permanent residents of Jaipur, Rajasthan, for decades and were not present in Bihar on the alleged date. They submitted extensive documentation including educational certificates, Aadhaar card, driving licence, ITR, bank records, family ration card, and biometric attendance proof. Notably, Ankit Kumar Sharma produced CCTV footage screenshots and an employer certificate confirming his presence in his Jaipur office on the day of the incident. The court noted the family’s deep roots in Rajasthan and the physical impossibility of travel during the nationwide COVID-19 lockdown.

Relying on Supreme Court precedents such as Salib Alias Shalu alias Salim Vs. State of UP and Mohd. Wajid Vs. State of U.P., the court emphasised its duty in cases of potential abuse of process. The judgment stated, “In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines.”

The court further noted the charge sheet was “cryptic and perfunctory” and the investigation mechanical. It highlighted the lockdown travel restrictions, describing the allegation of appellants travelling over 1,000 km from Jaipur to Saran as “dubious” and “beyond imagination.”

Applying the four-step analytical framework from Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani Vs. State of UP, the High Court found the defence materials to be of “sterling and impeccable quality,” unrefuted by the prosecution, and sufficient to rule out the accusations. The judgment concluded, “The informant has admitted in the FIR that she is domestic help/caretaker of the house of Late father of the husband of appellant no. 4… The motive for instituting the FIR against the appellants appears to be at the behest of landlords/masters of the respondent no. 2.”

Justice Sinha categorically held that the FIR was “a counterblast and tool to harass the appellants by way of launching false and malicious prosecution.” The court added, “It is well settled principle that criminal prosecution must not be permitted as an instrument of harassment and private vendetta.”

The Patna High Court ultimately quashed the cognizance order and the entire proceedings, allowing the appeal with no order as to costs.