Mala fide of complainant

Complainant was husband of the sister of the accused, and she had filed a suit for recovery of dowry articles which was decreed ex-parte and in the execution proceedings, the bailiff was appointed to recover the said articles

On the date of occurrence of present FIR, the bailiff visited the house of complainant but failed to recover the articles

According to the bailiff, the complainant was not present in the house and he kept on waiting for two hours and thus proceedings remained unsuccessful

While lodging the FIR, the complainant had totally suppressed the relationship of the accused with the complainant and also suppressed the fact of ex-parte decree

Even the arrival of the bailiff had been suppressed

All such circumstances clearly indicated the mala fide and ulterior motive on the part of the complainant

Co-accused, who was the father-in-law of the complainant was also nominated as one of the accused but during the investigation it was opined by the Investigating Officer that he was not present there and his bail was confirmed, which order was not challenged

Case of the accused was at par with his co-accused because the role against both of them was the same, mentioned in the FIR

Accused had also joined the investigation

Since accused remained successful in proving the mala fide on the part of the complainant, petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed, and pre-arrest bail already granted to the accused was confirmed.

Investigating Officer had not taken into custody the relevant record whereby such reference of meter could be tracked in the record or otherwise

Accused had placed on record copy of application dated 04-10-2021 (the date of occurrence), stating therein that on 01-10-2021 his meter was disconnected and had requested for its restoration

Such fact transpired that on 04-10-2021 when Electric Company FESCO Department raided, no meter was installed at the premises but later on 12-10-2021 present FIR was registered

Offence with which the accused was charged with did not fall within the prohibitory clause

Prosecution story was shaky, therefore, question of further inquiry arose

Involvement of the accused in the case with mala fide intention of the complainant could not be ruled out

Petition for grant of pre-arrest bail was allowed, in circumstances.

Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty, causing hurt by means of a poison, qatl-bis-sabab, criminal intimidation and common intention

Pre-arrest bail, grant of

Mala fide of complainant

Scope

Accused persons were alleged to have been the cause of the suicide of deceased

Communication in the shape of messages prima facie reflected an unhappy and obsessive relationship between the lady and one of the accused persons

Forensic Laboratory to whom the blood samples collected from the scene of incident were sent opined that no narcotic or poisonous substances were detected in the same

Offence under S.322, P.P.C. was punishable by the payment of diyat

Refusal of the complainant to initially lodge FIR; declining to permit a post-mortem; stating that the future course of action would be determined after consultation

Apparent revulsion, hostility and abhorrence of the deceased person's family towards the accused persons, based on WhatsApp messages; tinges of mala fide on the part of the complainant could not be conclusively ruled out at preliminary stage

Accused persons were admitted to pre-arrest bail, in circumstances.

Court can look into and evaluate the mala fide from the facts and circumstances of the case.

Court can look into and evaluate the mala fide from the facts and circumstances of the case.

First Information Report was lodged with a delay of one month and the explanation offered for such delay was unbelievable as to why, complainant, knowing that the petitioners were actual thieves, believed their word and did not report the matter to the police for such a long period

According to FIR, both the petitioners had admitted their theft and also promised to return the animals stolen by them, however, there was no date, time or place mentioned as to whether and when, such admission was made by the petitioners

Petitioners, according to FIR, were tracked through the help of a "Foot Tracker" but despite said fact, no statement under S. 161, Cr.P.C. was recorded of the said "Foot Tracker" during the investigation

Petitioners presented a copy of earlier application filed by complainant against some different accused with the allegation was of similar nature

Complainant admitted that such application was moved, however, stated that those co-accused were let off after compromise

Assertions of petitioners that they were involved in the case due to mala fide and malice, was not without basis and the same could not be rejected outright

No recovery was effected from the petitioners during investigation

Investigation of the case was complete and the Investigating officer had also verified the version of the complainant as well as of petitioners

Petitions for grant of pre-arrest bail were allowed, in circumstances.

Complainant alleged that the respondent was disseminating false and misleading information by using virtually identical firm names, trademarks and by copying of distinctive items of product packing

Respondent contended that complaint had filed complaint owing to personal vendetta and business rivalry and that the allegations levelled in the complaint were intended to harm its business reputation

Validity

Exercising any legal right available to a person through quasi-judicial forum, such as the Competition Commission, did not amount to business rivalry

Purpose of S. 10, Competition Act, 2010 was to provide a remedy to an aggrieved person whose rights were infringed by another by resorting to deceptive marketing practices being an unfair mean of distorting competition

Competition Act, 2010 provided a mechanism, such as enquiry process under S. 37, to scrutinize the complaint and check its veracity

Competition Act, 2010 even further provided a due opportunity to the person against whom a complaint was filed to appear and produce his defence

Mere exercise of legal right, in the presence of an extensive process, did not amount to settling personal vendetta

Apart from submissions no other evidence was produced to prove mala fide of the complainant

Mala fide had to be proved through independent and cogent evidence, mere allegation was not sufficient

Complaint was held to be maintainable and filed with bona fide to protect the rights of the complainant in accordance with law.

Petitioners (three in number) allegedly committed theft and took away Notary Register from the office of complainant, an advocate by profession

Petitioners included Chowkidar of a school and In-charge Record Room D.C. Office who contended that a dispute existed between petitioner (Chowkidar) and the complainant who were not only landlord and tenant per se but having a joint Bank account also

Complainant contended that High Court had no jurisdiction to decide bail before arrest as petitioners had not approached Sessions Court first

Validity

High Court had the powers to entertain and admit persons to bail before arrest, within the contemplation of S.498, Cr.P.C, especially where reasonable grounds existed, such as prima facie case, mala fide, ulterior motives, apprehension of arrest and maltreatment by the investigating agency or any other cause which would eventually cause humiliation, irreparable loss and harm to accused

Record revealed that the complainant, in one day, submitted to the concerned S.H.O three separate applications for the occurrence varying the names of accused

No direct evidence was available against petitioners regarding the alleged theft from the complainant's office

Record also showed that complainant was also landlord of petitioner (Chowkidar) and that earlier a case, under S.489-F, P.P.C., was registered against petitioner (Chowkidar) by a person whose counsel was the complainant of the present case

Father of the complainant in said case appeared before the Court and belied the version of the complainant

Court, in said case, had observed that petitioner (Chowkidar) was falsely implicated in the case with mala fide intention of the complainant

Mala fide on part of complainant was palpable on the face of record and petitioners had been involved in the present case with ulterior motive

Ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioners was confirmed, in circumstances.

Shajjah-i-khafifah, ghayr-jaifah damiyah, ghayr-jaifah munaqqillah, other hurt, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace

Pre-arrest bail, grant of

Mala fide of complainant

Offences with which accused persons were charged were punishable by way of imprisonment which did not fall within the prohibitory part of S. 497, Cr.P.C.

When the accused persons were entitled to post arrest bail, their prayer for pre-arrest bail, if declined, would be a matter of technicality alone

Accused persons were likely to be humiliated and disgraced due to their arrest at the hands of the local police

In the present case, it appeared that net had been thrown wider and the injuries sustained by the victims except one or two, had been exaggerated

Seemingly efforts had been made to show that the offences fell within such provisions of law, which were punishable with five years' or seven years' imprisonment

All said aspects, when considered combindly, constituted mala fides on part of complainant party

Accused persons were granted pre-arrest bail accordingly.

Subsequently husband's family lodged three F.I.Rs. against the family members of the wife, out of which two F.I.Rs. were disposed of in cancel class, while one was challaned, wherein father of wife, who appeared to be 70 years of age, had been shown as an accused

Prosecution could not point out any evidence/material collected against the father of the wife

Even if the allegations contained in the three F.I.Rs. were admitted, even then no offence was made out against family members of the wife

Mala fide of the husband and his family members, who lodged the F.I.Rs., was palpably floating on the record, as the F.I.Rs. were lodged after filing of suit by the wife

Husband and his family had caused harassment to the wife and her family members without legal justification

Non-interference by High Court in the present matter would tantamount to allowing illegality and highhandedness to perpetuate, and the court would also fail in preventing the abuse of process of the court

Present case was a fit case for quashing of proceedings

Constitutional petition was allowed, and the impugned F.I.Rs. and pending proceedings on the basis thereof were quashed.

Co-accused allegedly took away complainant's daughter/victim from her house, whereafter accused allegedly committed zina with her on gun point

Accused and co-accused were also alleged to have grabbed gold ornaments from the victim

Allegation of zina was made with a delay of one and a half months without rendering any explanation in such regard

Complainant/father of victim stated in court that accused and co-accused called the trouble upon themselves as they refused to hand over gold and cash belonging to the victim, which statement reflected the intent of the complainant qua lodging of present F.I.R. in order to procure/settle dispute over gold and money

Medical evidence was in conflict with ocular evidence

Accused and co-accused were real brother and sister inter se and it did not appeal to reason that a sister would be instrumental in facilitating her brother for committing such a heinous offence

Mala fide of complainant was apparent from the facts and circumstances of the case

Ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to accused and co-accused was confirmed, in circumstances.

Court could look into and evaluate mala fide from the facts and circumstances of the case.

Bail was granted to accused in circumstances.

Section 22-A, Cr.P.C. empowered the Justice of Peace for issuance of directions for registration of case, but this power, was never supposed to be exercised in a mechanical manner, without application of an independent mind

All such powers were vested in the authority for dispensation of justice and were never meant to be exercised in aid of injustice

Courts were never supposed to shut their eyes from other aspects of the case and to pass orders for registration of case on a false report of any complainant

When mala fide of a complainant was floating on the record and his tricky design was visible, then exercise of powers under S.22-A(6), Cr.P.C. by issuance of direction for registration of case would be an exercise in aid of injustice, which had never been the intention of the legislatures, in enactment of such provisions.