Summons based on trivial plaints taints image: Supreme Court

NEW DELHI: Observing that issuing summons to any person by a court on the basis of a frivolous or vexatious complaint is very serious as it tarnishes the image of the person, Supreme Court has said that in such cases HCs should intervene to protect the person by quashing the case as it would do not only justice to the accused but would save precious court time.A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta laid down four steps to be considered by HCs to come to the conclusion for quashing a criminal case. It said step one is to find out whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, step two is whether the material relied upon by the accused is sufficient to reject assertions contained in the complaint, step three is whether the material relied upon by the accused has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant or it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant and step four is, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice.”If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, the judicial conscience of the high court should persuade it to quash such criminal – proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 of the CrPC. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused,” the bench said. Applying the above test, the bench quashed a rape case against a man after noting that there was four years delay in filing complaint and the complainant also refused to accept notice from the apex court to contest the case. “It is very apparent on a plain reading of the complaint, more particularly, considering the nature of the allegations that the same doesn’t inspire any confidence. There is no good explanation offered, why it took four years for the respondent no.2 to file a complaint,” the bench said.It said not only the appellant was dragged into the criminal proceedings but even the parents of the appellant were arrayed as accused and various other offences have been alleged. “This itself makes the entire case doubtful. None of the allegations levelled in the complaint are substantiated by any other independent evidence on record,” the bench said.