As transpiring from the record, the appellant Madhu Pandit Das (accused no.1) is the President of ISKCON, Bengaluru since 1984 and the appellant Chanchalpati Das (accused no. 2) is the Vice President of ISKCON, Bengaluru since 1985. The said Bureau at the relevant time had entrusted Sri Adridharan Das, who was the President of the said Kolkata Branch, with the management of the assets and properties situated at Kolkata Branch, which included a 42-seat deluxe bus of Ashok Leyland make, model Viking Alpsv 4/37-222 WB passenger bus, bearing registration no. It was further stated in the said letter dated 30 September, 2006 that a report was also made to the police station on 22.05.2002, however subsequently they came to know that the said bus was in the illegal custody of Sri Madhu 3 Pandit Das, residing at Hare Krishna HilIs, Rajaji Nagar, Bengaluru, Karnataka. It is further case of the respondent-complainant that since the Ballygunge Police Station had not taken notice of the said letter dated 30.09.2006, the complainant Radha Raman Das, the Branch Manager of ISKCON, Kolkata had filed a private complaint in the year 2009 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, against the accused Madhu Pandit Das, Chanchalpati Das, Mahajan Das and Adridharan Das seeking investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. 58 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore against the accused Madhu Pandit Das, Chanchalpati Das, Mahajan Das and Adridharan Das, for the offences under Section 468, 471, 406 and 120-B IPC on 23.10.2010.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/high-court-dismisses-bail-application-in-corruption-case/
Relying upon the documents with regard to the transfer of registration of the bus in question, he submitted that the said bus was registered at Kolkata on 20.11.1998, however thereafter was registered at Bengaluru on 22.05.2002 after the execution of necessary documents of transfer and at present the bus is lying in the dump yard at Vrindavan, Uttar Pradesh.
2-complainant submitted that both the appellants have been charged by the respondent no. 1 State for the offence under Sections 468, 471, 406 and 120-B IPC as per the final report submitted by the investigating officer and there being a prima facie case made out against the appellants, which even the High Court had recorded in the impugned order, this Court may not interfere with the same. He also submitted that the proposal of appellants-accused to give a new bus to ISKCON Kolkata cannot be accepted, as the offences alleged against the appellants 7 are not compoundable under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. It is pertinent to note that with regard to the said allegations against the concerned police station, there is nothing on record to suggest that either the said report dated 22.05.2002 or the letter dated 30.09.2006 was ever received by the concerned police station or any follow up action was taken by the respondent- complainant in that regard.
According to the respondent- complainant, since no action was taken on the letter dated 30 September, 2006 written to the concerned Police Station, the complaint was lodged in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore on 10 February, 2009, which was registered as C.R. In our opinion, the criminal machinery set into motion by filing the complaint for the alleged incident which had taken place eight years ago, that act itself was nothing but a sheer misuse and abuse of the process of the court.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/illegality-of-arrest-under-pmla/
In any case, there is nothing to suggest from the other documents on record of the instant appeals that the investigating officer had even bothered to collect any cogent or substantive evidence against the appellants to prosecute them for the alleged offences. had held that the criminal proceedings could be quashed by the High Court under Section 482 if the court is of the opinion that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings are to be quashed.
State of Tamil Nadu that though inordinate delay in itself may not be a ground for quashing of a criminal complaint, however unexplained inordinate delay must be taken into consideration as a very crucial factor and ground for quashing a criminal complaint.
In the light of afore-stated legal position, if the facts of the case are appreciated, there remains no shadow of doubt that the complaint filed by the respondent-complainant after an unexplained delay of eight years was nothing but sheer misuse and abuse of the process of law to settle the personal scores with the appellants, and that continuation of such malicious prosecution would also be further abuse and misuse of process of law, more particularly when neither the allegations made in the complaint nor in the chargesheet, disclose any prima facie case against the appellants.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/dismissal-of-bail-application-in-money-laundering-case/
Because of the proliferation of frivolous cases in the courts, the real and genuine cases have to take a backseat and are not being heard for years together. 1,00,000/- which shall be deposited by the respondent-complainant in the office of the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association.
Case Title: CHANCHALPATI DAS Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL (2023 INSC 554)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001592-001592 / 2023
