Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 - Quashing of criminal proceedings - Contempt petition for filing two criminal writ petitions on same facts and for same relief - High Court closed the proceedings - Criminal complaint u/s 3(1)(viii) of 1989 Act filed for filing the said two criminal writ petitions - Held: High Court in contempt petition has dealt with the issue involved and the matter stood closed at the instance of complainant himself - Therefore, there can be no justification whatsoever to launch criminal prosecution on that basis afresh - Inherent power of court in dealing with an extraordinary situation is in the larger interest of administration of justice and for preventing manifest injustice being done -Thus, it is a judicial obligation on court to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice and to prevent continuation of unnecessary judicial process - It may be so necessary to curb the menace of such criminal prosecution - Complaint filed u/s 3(1)(viii) of 1989 Act is quashed - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes  (Prevention of Attrocities) Act, 1989 - s.3(1)(viii) - Code of Criminal Procoedure, 1898 - s. 403(2).

CRIMINAL LAW:

Issued estoppel - Explained - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 - s.403(2).

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities) Act, 1989:s.3(1)(viii) - Prosecution for filing of false, malicious or vexatious or criminal or other legal proceedings - Expressions, 'false', 'malafides' and 'vexatious - Connotation of - Held: Merely because the victim/complainant belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, the same cannot be the sole ground for prosecution, for the reason that the offence mentioned under the Act should be committed against him on the basis of the fact that such a person belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe - An unsuccessful application for the purpose of quashing the FIR lodged by  complainant does not mean that a false case was filed against him.

The appellant was arrested in connection with FIR No. 25412005 for offences punishable u/ss 427, 447 and 506 read with s.34 IPC filed by respondent no. 1. On his release on bail, he engaged respondent no.2 as his advocate and filed W. P. (Crl.) No. 1667 of 2005, inter alia, seeking to quash FIR No. 25412005. It was the case of the appellant that he was the owner and in possession of 1 bigha and 4 biswas of agricultural land with regard to which respondent no. 1 made an attempt to take forcible possession and also filed the criminal case. The said writ petition was dismissed. However, final report u/ss.173 and 169 CrPC was submitted in the court in FIR No. 254; and the claim of respondent no.1 for inclusion of his name in revenue records as a person in possession/ occupation was also rejected. Thereafter, W. P. (Crl.) No. 2657/2006 came to be filed by respondent no. 2 in the name of the appellant, containing the same averments as made in the first writ petition and seeking the same relief.  This writ petition was dismissed in default. Thereafter respondent no.1 filed Contempt Case (Crl.) No. 10/2007 before the High Court against the appellant for filing the said two criminal writ petitions. The appellant filed a reply expressing his ignorance regarding the filing of the second criminal writ petition. Respondent no. 2 also tendered an unconditional apology. The High Court A accepted the version of the appellant and the apology of respondent no.2 and, by order dated 16.02.2009, closed the criminal proceedings. Respondent no.1 then filed a criminal complaint u/s 3(1)(viii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities) Act, 1989  against the appellant for filing the said two criminal writ petitions. The Metropolitan Magistrate by his order dated 13.08.2009 dismissed the complaint. However, the revision of respondent no. 1 was allowed. The petition of the appellant u/s. 482 CrPC seeking to quash the criminal complaint having been dismissed by the High Court, he filed the appeal.