LI Network
Published on: January 13, 2024 at 11:32 IST
In a significant move, the Supreme Court, sternly rebuked a litigant for abusing the legal system through the submission of false and baseless complaints, coupled with the intentional omission of vital details.
The Court criticized the respondent for engaging in forum shopping and lodging an FIR against the appellants despite the commercial nature of the dispute.
Expressing strong disapproval of such abuse of power, a Division Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal imposed a hefty penalty of ₹25 lakhs on the respondent, identified as Karan Gambhir.
The Court’s statement declared, “Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, we impose costs of ₹25 lakhs on the respondent Karan Gambhir to be deposited within four weeks from today with the Registry of this Court. Upon receipt of the said amount, the same will be transmitted in equal amount to the SCBA & SCAORA to be utilised for the development and benefit of their members.”
Unyielding in its stance, the Court emphasized that individuals resorting to unscrupulous litigation should not escape consequences and must be subjected to strict terms and conditions, including financial penalties.
The Court underscored its position, asserting that it was time to firmly address litigation tainted by concealment, falsehood, and forum hunting. The Court also called for serious reprimand of state actions or the conduct of government servants involved in such malicious litigation.
In the specific case at hand, the respondent had filed an FIR against the promoters of three companies, accusing them of forgery and cheating. Allegedly, the complainant’s company was induced to provide short-term loans to the accused companies. Despite the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Gautam Budh Nagar issuing a summoning order, the accused individuals/appellants sought relief from the High Court, leading to the present appeal.
Examining the issue of false jurisdiction, the Supreme Court noted the registration of the FIR in Noida, while the registered offices of the implicated companies were located in Delhi. The Court criticized this as an attempt at forum shopping, casting doubts on the complainant’s sincerity.
The Court further criticized the Trial Court’s lack of diligence in taking cognizance of the matter and issuing summons, highlighting a failure to consider the addresses of both the complainant and the accused companies.
The Court condemned the complainant for concealing material facts and constructing a fabricated narrative of document forgery in the complaint. Expressing dismay, the Court noted that the respondent had chosen to pursue criminal charges as a means of abusing the criminal justice system for personal vengeance, rather than seeking genuine justice.
The Court, while acknowledging the burden placed on the criminal justice system, emphasized the need to address the apparent misuse of criminal proceedings, stressing that such actions not only erode trust in the legal system but also set harmful precedents. In light of these considerations, the Court deemed the case a clear instance of malicious prosecution and consequently quashed the FIR against the appellants.
Case Details: DINESH GUPTA v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
