Recently, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court set aside a criminal First Information Report (FIR) filed against Anand Nagri Sahakari Bank Ltd. and its officials in 2021. The FIR was for allegations of forgery and cheating, but the court determined that the complainant had abused the police process to try to advance the allegations.
The court found that the complaint was not of sufficient legal merit to proceed as a criminal case. The bench found the FIR no more than one showing ulterior motives rather than a legitimate complaint. The bench viewed misuse of the legal process seriously, to the extent that it warranted judicial intervention at the FIR stage to prevent needless harassment of individuals and the institution alleged in the complaint.
In disposing of the matter, the court acknowledged the need to protect the operation of public entities including the police. Not only did the complainant misuse the machinery of the police, but he wasted a significant police resource, and it also impacts the reputations of individuals or institutions alleged. For the above reasons, the bench ordered the parties (the bank and the complainant) to each deposit ₹30,000 into a police welfare fund as a credit to the police for their time and effort spent.
Legal commentators are recommending that this case brings to the forefront the role of the judiciary in ensuring that the criminal law is not used as a weapon against personal vendetta or business enemies. On numerous occasions, the court has affirmed that an FIR should signal the commencement of an inquiry into a bona fide offence/dispute, and that the misuse of this remedial avenue or trafficking in falsehoods or fantasies will be viewed seriously by the court and judicial consequences are likely to follow.
The setting aside of the FIR provides immediate reprieve to Anand Nagri Sahakari Bank Ltd. and its officials, as the decision provides both a pathway to proceed with their operations free from the encumbrance of ongoing allegations. It also reinforces the judiciary’s respect for a complaint made to the police based in good faith, and reinforces that the court would take a dim view to a complainant that engages in the misuse of the process.
Overall, the decision emphasizes the delicate balance that a court must strike between protecting individuals from harassment or intimidation through unwarranted complaints to the police, while also ensuring that legitimate grievances are afforded due legal rights and remedies.
Lawcutor 