While taking the most right step in the most right direction and taking the bull by the horns, we see that the Supreme Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark and latest judgment titled Vishal Noble Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.2389/2023) that was pronounced as recently as on January 24, 2024 urged courts to be vigilant against the misuse of the criminal justice machinery by certain persons having vested interests. We thus see that a Division Bench of Apex Court comprising of Hon’ble Ms Justice BV Nagarathna and Hon’ble Mr Justice Augustine George Masih while setting aside the decision of the Allahabad High Court and consequently quashing the FIR and all consequent proceedings initiated against the appellant minced just no words to observe that the criminal process cannot be exercised for any oblique purpose. Of course, it also very rightly hastened to add that the High Courts while exercising their powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), must quash proceedings where the allegations prima facie do not establish an offence.

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by Hon’ble Ms Justice BV Nagarathna for a Division Bench of the Apex Court comprising of herself and Hon’ble Mr Justice Augustine George Masih sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 2 that:
The present appeals arise out of the common order dated 24.01.2023 passed by the Allahabad High Court dismissing the applications preferred by the Accused-Appellants under Section 482 bearing Nos.33816/2022 and 33242/2022.

To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 3 that:
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Complainant-Respondent No.2 registered a First Information Report (for short, ‘FIR’) bearing No. 476/2017, under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, IPC).

The allegations in the FIR can be crystallized as under:

1. The Accused-Appellant, Vishal Noble Singh, is the Principal of the Bishop Johnson School and College, a minority educational institution which is governed by the Diocese Education Board, Lucknow (DEB) which is run under the Church of North India (CNI).
2. The Accused-Appellant, Vinod Bihari Lal, is the Secretary of DEB.
3. The Secretaries and other officers of CNI and DEB, in collusion with the Accused-Appellants, were fraudulently running the institution by fabricating matriculation and other documents.
4. The institution was functioning without affiliation from the Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations (CISCE) Board.
5. The Accused-Appellants and the co-accused persons were embezzling fees paid by many girl students to the extent of Rs.13 crores.

As it turned out, the Bench enunciates in para 4 that:
Upon registration of the FIR, the Accused-Appellant, Vishal Noble Singh, filed W.P. No. 18274/2017 before the Allahabad High Court which granted interim relief against his arrest. The Investigating Officer registered a charge sheet under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, CrPC) on 04.10.2017 on concluding that sufficient grounds were present to prosecute the Accused-Appellants and other co-accused. Therefore, the Investigating Officer requested for summoning the witnesses and evidence. On 16.10.2019, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the Writ Petition No.18274/2017 for want of prosecution. In view of the chargesheet, the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad passed an order on 21.09.2022 whereby it took cognizance of the offences and summoned the Accused-Appellants (Vishal Noble Singh and Vinod Bihari Lal) on 05.10.2022.

As we see, the Bench then lays bare in para 5 that:
Being aggrieved by the order of the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad, the Accused-Appellants (Vishal Noble Singh and Vinod Bihari Lal) filed the Applications under Section 482 bearing No.33816/2022 and No.33242/2022 respectively before the Allahabad High Court praying to quash the FIR No.476/2017 on the ground that even though the institution enjoyed constitutional protection under Article 30 of the Constitution, the police had maliciously filed a vague FIR where even the broad allegations did not attract the ingredients of any of Sections of the IPC.

Simply put, the Bench puts forth in para 6 that:
The High Court passed a common order dismissing the Applications preferred by the Accused-Appellants. The High Court took note of the report received by the Investigating Officer from the District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad which stated that there were complaints about the operation of the institution without requisite permission. The High Court reasoned that the allegations of the nature that were the subject matter of the case could only be considered based on evidence at the appropriate stage of trial. It held that the High Court could not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction when there is a dispute on the factual aspects, vide Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401 (Neeharika Infrastructure).

As things stands, the Bench points out in para 14 that:
The contents of the FIR as well as the chargesheet would have to be read in light of the ingredients mentioned in the aforesaid Sections and in light of the facts and circumstances of these cases. The FIR as well as the charge-sheet have invoked Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and Section 120B of the IPC. The aforesaid Sections are reproduced above. We fail to understand as to how the allegations against the appellants herein could be brought within the scope and ambit of the aforesaid sections.

Do note, the Bench notes in para 15 that:
The allegations against the appellants herein are that the Secretary of DEB Vinod Bihari Lal and other office bearers of the DEP have, in collusion with the Principal of the School Vishal Singh and another, conspired and on the affiliation of Bishop Johnson College, Civil Lines Bishop Johnson Girls Wing, Katra is being run fraudulently by preparing fabricated documents and by illegally making Srimati Yojna Lal, Principal of Girls Wing while playing with the future of thousands of girl students who have taken admission and siphoned of all the money received in fee and are distributing it among themselves and embezzling it. The aforesaid persons have till date embezzled from the fees of the students (public money) around Rs.13 crores, That no school affiliated with ICSE Board can open a school while the Bishop Johnson Girls Wing School is not an affiliated school. This, in fact, is also certified from the inspection report of the District Inspector of Schools and District Basic Education Officer, Allahabad which document is attached.

As one can see, the Bench then observes in para 16 that:
The final report in, sum and substance, echoes the very same allegations to the effect that the accused have committed an offence by fabricating documents and on the basis of fabricated and forged documents have operated this School since 2014 and have collected fees from girl students and distributed the same among themselves. The Investigating Officer has stated that he found sufficient evidence available and hence, the chargesheet No.1541/2017 was presented before the jurisdictional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad and therefore summons had to be issued.

Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 17 that:
On a reading of the FIR as well as the charge-sheet, we do not find that the offences aforestated is made out at all. We do not find any criminal breach of trust nor any cheating by impersonation. There is also no cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, nor has any documents referred to any forgery or security or any forgery for the purpose of cheating. There is no reference to any document which has been forged so as to be used as a genuine document and much less is as there any criminal conspiracy which can be imputed to the appellants herein in the absence of any offence being made out vis-a-vis the aforesaid Sections.

It cannot be glossed over that the Bench expounds in para 19 that:
On a careful consideration of the aforementioned judicial dicta, we find that none of the offences alleged against the Accused-Appellants herein is made out. In fact, we find that the allegations of criminal intent and other allegations against the Accused-Appellants herein have been made with a malafide intent and therefore, the judgment of this Court in the case of Bhajan Lal and particularly sub-paragraphs 1, 3, 5 and 7 of paragraph 102, extracted above, squarely apply to the facts of these cases. It is neither expedient nor in the interest of justice to permit the present prosecution to continue.

While citing the most relevant case law, the Bench propounds in para 20 that, This Court, in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692, reasoned that the criminal process cannot be utilized for any oblique purpose and held that while entertaining an application for quashing an FIR at the initial stage, the test to be applied is whether the uncontroverted allegations prima facie establish the offence. This Court also concluded that the court should quash those criminal cases where the chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by continuation of a criminal prosecution. The aforesaid observations squarely apply to this case.

Most significantly, the Bench mandates in para 21 that:
We find that in recent years the machinery of criminal justice is being misused by certain persons for their vested interests and for achieving their oblique motives and agenda. Courts have therefore to be vigilant against such tendencies and ensure that acts of omission and commission having an adverse impact on the fabric of our society must be nipped in the bud.

Adding more to it, the Bench notes in para 22 that:
We say so for the reason that while the second respondent-complainant has made grave allegations against the appellants herein and on whose behalf a charge-sheet has also been filed against such allegations has failed to appear before this Court to justify the same. Such acts would not only cause deep fissures and mistrust between people and also unnecessarily burden the law courts and the criminal justice system.

Most strikingly, the Bench points out in para 23 that:
We are constrained to make the aforesaid observations particularly having regard to the fact that the second Respondent complainant having made the allegations against the appellants and others has failed to appear before this Court to justify the same. The non-appearance of the second respondent before this Court is indicative of his prejudicial attitude and temperament and his inability to justify any of the allegations against the appellants herein and therefore his absence in this proceeding.

Most forthrightly, the Bench propounds in para 24 that:
We also find that the reliance by the High Court upon the judgment of this Court in Neeharika Infrastructure is not apposite. The facts in the aforementioned case and the present case are quite different. The aforementioned case concerned a special leave petition filed by a complainant aggrieved by an interim order of the Bombay High Court that granted protection to the applicant therein from ‘coercive steps.’ The grievance of the complainant in that case was that one-and-half years after securing protection from arrest from the Sessions Court, the accused had filed a Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court to quash the FIR. Accordingly, this Court had quashed the interim order of ‘no coercive steps’ and cautioned against the practice of directing ‘no coercive steps’ while dismissing applications under Section 482 of CrPC. This Court had also clarified that it was not expressing any view on merits of the application for quashing of the FIR in the said case. Therefore, the High Court ought not to have relied upon the said judgment to deny the relief to the present Accused-Appellants.

Finally and as a corollary, the Bench then concludes by holding in para 25 that, In the circumstances, the impugned order of the High Court is set aside and consequently, the FIR dated 09.08.2017, the chargesheet dated 04.10.2017 and all consequent proceedings initiated pursuant thereto stand quashed. The appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms.

All told, we thus see that the Supreme Court has minced just no words absolutely to express its most strongest apprehensions and so also most candid confession that our criminal justice machinery is being misused by certain persons. There can be thus no gainsaying that this definitely must be tackled now forthwith as if it is not checked well in time, it will undoubtedly have huge repercussions in the smooth and sincere application of rule of law! It also thus merits no reiteration that the courts have to be vigilant round the clock against such tendencies as they cause huge mistrust between people and also unnecessarily burden the criminal justice system. The earlier we all realize this and take the necessary corrective measures in this direction, the better it shall be in the longer run for the smooth and effective functioning of our criminal justice delivery system! No denying it!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh.