DARIS K RAJ Vs. A T FRANCIS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case is very different from the character petitions that filed of are quashing of criminal proceedings before the lower courts in so far as it deals with an issue in very cruciial significance. The petitioners are husband wife and as will be presently illustrated, they are persons of status who come forward to undertake the cleansing of public life and improvement of the general quality of life. Inevitably, they have had deal with powerful anti socia1 elements underworld forces and familiar tactic has been used against them by way of threats and intimidation in Order to beat them down. The Courts have come across instances where human beings substance and of courage fight on, these attacks and pressures notwithstanding, and the basic issue, and one of very very deep seated significance has been arising in this case is whether the laws and the institutions that administer them are required to support, assist and redress and situation wherein litigation and Court cases are used as a weapon against them. It is a cruel joke when statements are made that the finest form of harassment and torture institute a Court proceeding against parties and drag them through the torture and trauma of an unjust litigation, not to mention the heavy expenditure that it entails even to contend with such a litigation. Are the Courts powerless when frivolous, vexatious, unjustified, malafied and motivated litigation is instituted and is it the scheme and requirement of the law that the victim in these instances has to go through the entire turmoil and turbulence for years together and be at the receiving end until that litigation finally concludes or is it the intention of the law that the powers vested in the High Court under S. 482 Cr. P. C. have specifically been promulgated for purposes of culling and quashing this class of litigation at it very inception, are really the basic issues involved in this very heavily contested litigation. It is a paint of immense importance because the Courts have always adopted the principle that the High Court will be extremely slow and reluctant in the matter of quashing a criminal prosecution, the familiar argument being that the complainant must have an adequate opportunity of establishing the case at the time of the trial, the obvious difficulty that arises where the courts have for good reason refused to go into any assessment with regard to the falsity or other wise of the allegations at a pre-trial stage and the general principle that where the complainant has been careful enough to make out a prima facie case that interference would be improper or situations which create almost a total bar to the aggrieved party obtaining any redressal at a pre-trial stage. The end result is that these cases linger and fester in the trial Courts and the time factor alone acts as an unbearable pressure on the accused. The justice dispensation machinery is choked up with these complaints and one is left with very telling and eye opening statistics which would perhaps impel the High Court tot do some drastic rethinking as far as the approach in this field of law is concerned.

(2.) PRIVATE complaints are resorted to with very high frequency and cover everything from defamation to petty assaults and commercial transactions that are given the colour and complexion of criminal offences in order to coerce a settlement. The only precaution which the complainant has to take is to ensure that the drafting is letter perfect, that overtacts of culpability are attributed, that the facts are so arranged they come within the ingredients of charging section and that the complaint that satisfies the requirement of a prima facie case. The learned Magistrate is dutybound to issue applications for process, the discharge rejected on the ground that they are premature if the evidence is required to be lead applications for quashing have also failed on ground that prima facie case is made out. In Between 1995 and 2000 the percentage of acquittals private Complaints in the State of Karnataka was high as 94. 6 percent. Between the years 2000 and 2003 this figure rose to 96. 5 percent. Do these statistics tell us that a very large percentage of private complaints that are instituted required culling? The Courts themselves are heavily conscious of the fact that unjustified overloading of the system us contributing to chaos, which the Chief Justices and legal luminaries have termed as the near collapse of the criminal justice and does the remedy therefore lie in taking necessary steps to ensure that the Courts make way for the genuine cases by eliminating the underserving ones and taking deterrent action for purposes of ensuring that their number does not increase. These basically are the wider considerations that have been thrown up for decision in this petition.

(3.) BEFORE dealing with the issues that are in dispute, it would be of some relevance to deal with the status of the parties before the Court. It would be appropriate to reproduce paragraphs 3 and 4 of the petition which summarise the position: