Anushri Joshi
The Allahabad High Court recently delivered a scathing rebuke, censuring the conduct of an individual who had orchestrated a criminal case against his elder brother with the sole intention to “wreak vengeance.” The court, deeply perturbed by the evident misuse of legal mechanisms for personal vendetta, unequivocally condemned the weaponization of the judicial system for ulterior motives. The matter at hand involved an application to quash a charge sheet under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertained to allegations of criminal breach of trust. Additionally, the application sought to set aside both the cognizance order and summoning order issued by the trial court in relation to the criminal case. Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, while adjudicating the matter, observed that the “…present criminal proceedings was initiated by the complainant only for purpose of wrecking vengeance,” thereby crystallizing the court’s view that the complainant had resorted to criminal litigation not as a legitimate recourse, but as a tool of harassment.
Advocate Avanish Kumar Shukla appeared for the appellant, advocating that the proceedings were born out of malice and failed to satisfy the legal prerequisites for a charge under Section 406 IPC. On the opposing side, Government Advocate Dinesh Kumar Singh represented the respondent, arguing for the sustenance of the criminal charges and the procedural orders issued by the lower court. Despite the vigorous arguments from both sides, the facts as presented before the court painted a picture of a fraternal feud, rather than a bona fide criminal transgression. The court, having meticulously analyzed the facts and circumstances, discerned that the allegations were little more than a facade, concealing the true nature of the dispute, which was civil rather than criminal in essence.
The dispute originated from the death of the brothers’ father, which triggered a bitter familial conflict over financial matters. The complainant, an Advocate by profession, accused his elder brother of criminal breach of trust, specifically alleging the failure to return ₹2.20 lakh. Further, the elder brother was accused of misappropriating funds from a joint account that had been maintained with their father, an action purportedly based on a contested will. An FIR was registered, leading to the submission of a charge sheet under Section 406 IPC. Several attempts at reconciliation were made, but they proved futile, leading to the continuation of the criminal proceedings. During its examination of the case, the court noted that, under Section 406 IPC, the fundamental requirement for establishing criminal breach of trust is the existence of entrustment, followed by dishonesty in the misappropriation or conversion of the entrusted property. This misappropriation must be in direct contravention of a legal directive or contractual obligation, whether explicit or implied. In the present case, however, the court found that these prerequisites were glaringly absent.
The court further remarked that it was evident from the facts that the complainant had initiated these criminal proceedings as a stratagem to exert pressure on his elder brother, possibly in the hope of coercing him into a settlement or negotiation. This ulterior motive was accentuated by the fact that the complainant, being an advocate, would have been fully cognizant of the fact that his claims did not meet the threshold for criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC. The court surmised that the legal proceedings were nothing more than an attempt to use the criminal justice system as leverage in what was essentially a civil dispute over inheritance, particularly since the complainant was not a beneficiary under the will in question. By dressing up a civil dispute in the garb of a criminal case, the complainant sought to harass and malign his elder sibling, a tactic that the court could not countenance.
In delivering its judgment, the court categorically held that the ingredients necessary to sustain a charge under Section 406 IPC were not made out in the present case. Furthermore, the court expressed its deep disapproval of the complainant’s malafide intentions, describing the proceedings as a calculated attempt to misuse the criminal justice system for personal gain. Such actions, the court noted, undermined the sanctity of the legal process and amounted to an abuse of the court’s time and resources. The court, therefore, quashed the entire criminal proceedings, including the charge sheet, the cognizance order, and the summoning order, thereby putting an end to what it deemed a frivolous and vexatious litigation.
In an evocative and culturally resonant closing remark, the court drew an analogy from Indian mythology to underscore the gravity of the complainant’s conduct. It stated, “…we always cherish sacrifice of the Bharat, younger brother of the Bhagwan Shri Ram but the complainant for his conduct towards his elder brother could be termed as a ‘Kalyugi Bharat’.” This comparison highlighted the stark contrast between the revered figure of Bharat, known for his selflessness and devotion to his elder brother, and the complainant, whose actions were marked by selfishness and malevolence. By invoking this analogy, the court sought to emphasize the moral failing inherent in the complainant’s actions. Ultimately, the court allowed the application, thereby quashing the charges and delivering justice in favor of the appellant.
Case Title: Sanjeev Chaddha vs. State of U.P.
Case Number: 2024: AHC:145945
Bench: Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Click here to access the order