Ravinder Singh vs. Sukhbir Singh & Ors, Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 2013, Decided on 11th January,
2013
The Appellant filed two criminal
writs on same facts, concealing the fact of filing first criminal writ in the
second criminal writ. The Appellant alleged that his advocate without his
consent filed the second writ. The High Court accepted the apology of advocate
and closed the matter.
The Respondent No. 1 filed
complaint under section 3 of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the Appellant. The matter came
before Supreme Court.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court
interpreted the words ‘False, malicious and vexatious’ used in section 3 of the
Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989,
and held:
‘False’
“The dictionary meaning of word `false’ means
that, which is in essence, incorrect, or purposefully untrue, deceitful etc.
Thus, the word ‘false’, is used to cover only unlawful falsehood. It means
something that is dishonestly, untrue and deceitful, and implies an intention
to perpetrate some treachery or fraud. In jurisprudence, the word ‘false’ is
used to characterise a wrongful or criminal act, done intentionally and
knowingly, with knowledge, actual or constructive. The word false may also be
used in a wide or narrower sense. When used in its wider sense, it means
something that is untrue whether or not stated intentionally or knowingly, but
when used in its narrower sense, it may cover only such falsehoods, which are
intentional. The question whether in a particular enactment, the word false is
used in a restricted sense or a wider sense, depends upon the context in which
it is used”. [Para 11]
The Court also referred following
case law:
Commissioner of Sales Tax, Uttar
Pradesh v. Sanjiv Fabrics, (2010) 9 SCC 630, wherein this Court, after relying
upon certain legal dictionaries, explained that the word false describes an
untruth, coupled with wrong intention or an intention to deceive. The Court
further held that in case of criminal prosecution, where consequences are
serious, findings of fact must be recorded with respect to mens rea in case a
falsehood as a condition precedent for imposing any punishment.
‘Malicious act’
“Legitimate indignation does not fall within
the ambit of a malicious act. In almost all legal inquiries, intention as
distinguished from motive is the all important factor. In common parlance, a
malicious act has been equated with an intentional act without just cause or
excuse”. [Para 14]
“Mala fides, where it is alleged, depends
upon its own facts and circumstances, in fact has to be proved. It is a
deliberate act in disregard of the rights of others. It is a wrongful act done
intentionally without just cause or excuse.” [Para 16]
The Court also referred following
case laws:
West Bengal State Electricity
Board v. Dilip Kumar Ray, AIR 2007 SC 976, wherein the SC dealt with the term
“malicious prosecution” by referring to various dictionaries etc. as : ‘Malice
in the legal sense imports (1) the absence of all elements of justification,
excuse or recognised mitigation, and (2) the presence of either (a) an actual intent
to cause the particular harm which is produced or harm of the same general
nature, or (b) the wanton and wilful doing of an act with awareness of a plain
and strong likelihood that such harm may result. ‘MALICE’ consists in a
conscious violation of the law to the prejudice of another and certainly has
different meanings with respect to responsibility for civil wrongs and
responsibility for crime. Malicious prosecution means - a desire to obtain a collateral
advantage. The principles to be borne in mind in the case of actions for
malicious prosecutions are these:—Malice is not merely the doing of a wrongful
act intentionally but it must be established that the defendant was actuated by
malus animus, that is to say, by spite or ill will or any indirect or improper
motive. But if the defendant had reasonable or probable cause of launching the
criminal prosecution no amount of malice will make him liable for damages.
Reasonable and probable cause must be such as would operate on the mind of a discreet
and reasonable man; ‘malice’ and ‘want of reasonable and probable cause,’ have
reference to the state of the defendant's mind at the date of the initiation of
criminal proceedings and the onus rests on the plaintiff to prove them.
Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. v.
Girja Shankar Pant & Ors., AIR 2001 SC 24)
State of Punjab v. V.K. Khanna &
Ors., AIR 2001 SC 343
State of A.P. & Ors. v.
Goverdhanlal Pitti, AIR 2003 SC 1941
Prabodh Sagar v. Punjab SEB &
Ors., AIR 2000 SC 1684;
Chairman and MD, BPL Ltd. v. S.P.
Gururaja & Ors., AIR 2003 SC 4536).
‘Vexatious’
“The word
"vexatious" means ‘harassment by the process of law', 'lacking justification'
or with 'intention to harass'. It signifies an action not having sufficient
grounds, and which therefore, only seeks to annoy the adversary. The hallmark
of a vexatious proceeding is that it has no basis in law (or at least no
discernible basis); and that whatever the intention of the proceeding may be,
its only effect is to subject the other party to inconvenience, harassment and
expense, which is so great, that it is disproportionate to any gain likely to
accrue to the claimant; and that it involves an abuse of process of the court.
Such proceedings are different from those that involve ordinary and proper use
of the process of the court.” [Para 17]
The court on the facts of the
case held:
“In the event
that the appellant preferred an application for the purpose of quashing the FIR
lodged by respondent no.1, and was unsuccessful therein, the same does not mean
that the appellant had filed a false case against respondent No. 1. There is a
difference between the terms `not proved’ and `false’. Merely because a party
is unable to prove a fact, the same cannot be categorized as false in each and
every case. [Para 13]
The Court also referred following
case laws:
Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman v.
State of Maharashtra, AIR 2000 SC 1876, this Court has dealt with the
application of the provisions of the Act 1989, and held that merely because the
victim/complainant belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, the same
cannot be the sole ground for prosecution, for the reason that the offence
mentioned under the said Act 1989 should be committed against him on the basis
of the fact that such a person belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.
In the absence of such ingredient, no offence under Section 3 (2)(v) of the Act
is made out.
A. Abdul Rashid Khan (dead) &
Ors. v. P.A.K.A. Shahul Hamid & Ors., (2000) 10 SCC 636)
To see full text follow the link: