NAGPUR: The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has quashed two criminal cases, along with their charge-sheets and pending trials, against Nagpur businessman Tapan Rameshkumar Jaiswal, observing that the circumstances surrounding multiple FIRs registered against him raised serious concerns about the approach of the police and the possibility of proceedings being driven by personal vendetta.
In judgments delivered by a single-judge bench of Justice M.W. Chandwani, the High Court allowed Jaiswal’s criminal applications challenging FIR No. 166/2020 registered at Rana Pratap Nagar Police Station and FIR No. 178/2020 registered at Bajaj Nagar Police Station. The court held that continuing the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
A significant factor in the court’s decision was that three consecutive criminal cases had been registered against Jaiswal within eight days, largely involving similar allegations. The court noted that all three FIRs were registered at either Bajaj Nagar or Rana Pratap Nagar police stations, both falling under the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Crime Branch), Nagpur City.
The court observed, “All the above circumstances speak in volume regarding the approach of the police towards the applicant.”
Alleged kidnapping case weakened after victim’s jail presence emerged
While examining the circumstances of the case registered at Rana Pratap Nagar Police Station, the court noted that the initial allegations against Jaiswal included kidnapping, the use of a firearm and extortion.
However, it subsequently emerged that the person allegedly kidnapped, and against whom the firearm-related allegation was made, was in jail at the relevant time. The police consequently dropped the serious charges under the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act.
The prosecution was left with allegations under the Maharashtra Money-Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014, relating to transactions dating back to 2015. The High Court found grounds to quash the remaining proceedings as well.
Complainant alleged pressure by Crime Branch
The High Court also considered the circumstances of a third connected FIR registered at Bajaj Nagar Police Station, which had previously been quashed.
According to the judgment, the complainant in that case had submitted an affidavit stating that he was repeatedly summoned to the Crime Branch office and was compelled to lodge a false FIR against Jaiswal because of the circumstances created by police authorities.
The court considered this affidavit alongside the pattern of multiple cases registered within a short period while assessing whether the continuation of the proceedings would serve the ends of justice.
Pending petition alleges false cases at police officer’s instance
The judgment also took note of Criminal Writ Petition No. 594/2022, filed by Jaiswal before a Division Bench against the then Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch, Nagpur City, and other police personnel.
The petition alleges that false and vexatious cases were registered against him at the instance of the then senior police officer. The High Court clarified that the writ petition remains pending and will be decided on its own merits.
The observations in the present proceedings, therefore, must be read in the context of the specific FIRs and material examined by the court.
Supreme Court precedent on personal vendetta
In reaching its conclusion, the High Court relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Iqbal alias Bala and Others vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2023).
The precedent emphasises that courts examining allegations of frivolous or vexatious criminal proceedings must consider the surrounding circumstances, rather than restricting their assessment to the contents of the police record.
The High Court noted that the registration of multiple FIRs over a period of time could raise the issue of “wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge”, as alleged in the case before it.
Applying these principles to the material in the charge-sheets and the surrounding circumstances, the court held that the case warranted the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to prevent abuse of the judicial process and secure the ends of justice.
Court flags procedural violations and delay
The High Court also examined the legality of the investigation into the alleged offences under the Maharashtra Money-Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014.
It found that the relevant provisions were non-cognizable offences and observed that the police could not register an FIR and investigate them without obtaining the mandatory order of a competent Magistrate under Section 155(2) of the CrPC.
Relying on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal, the court held that the procedural violation vitiated the prosecution. It also noted a delay of more than five years in lodging the FIR and held that the statutory limitation for taking cognizance presented an additional legal bar.
FIRs, charge-sheets and pending trials quashed
In its operative order, the High Court allowed both criminal applications and quashed FIR No. 166/2020 registered at Rana Pratap Nagar Police Station and FIR No. 178/2020 registered at Bajaj Nagar Police Station, along with the consequential charge-sheets and pending trials, insofar as they concerned Jaiswal.
Senior counsel Subodh Dharmadhikari and advocates Sameer Sonwane, Amit Thakur, Aaquid Mirza, Abhishek Tagde and Shiba Thakur appeared on behalf of Jaiswal.
