Criminal complaint cannot be dismissed on the sole ground that it was made out of political revenge: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The complaint was filed by a political rival who alleged that the plaintiffs were trying to influence the election by distributing liquor. The plaintiffs denied the allegations and claimed that the complaint was based on political vendetta. They also argued that the quantity of liquor found in their vehicle did not exceed the permissible limits under the Excise Act and on this ground sought quashing of the FIR.

Judge Rakesh Kainthlapresiding over the case, rejected the argument that the political motives behind the complaint were a reasonable ground for quashing the FIR. The court stressed that “The fact that the complaint may have been made out of political revenge is not in itself a reason to discontinue the criminal proceedings..”

This argument was based on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ramveer Upadhyay vs. State of UPwhich stipulates that a criminal prosecution remains valid even if it is carried out with malicious intent or political motives, as long as it is supported by sufficient evidence.

One of the main arguments raised by the petitioners was that the seizure of the six bottles of liquor did not constitute an offence under the Himachal Pradesh Excise Act as each person in the vehicle was allowed to possess a maximum of two bottles of liquor.

However, Judge Kainthla rejected this argument and referred to the court’s decision in Veena Devi & Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradeshwhere the court ruled that it was not permissible to divide the seized contraband among several defendants in order to avoid legal liability. The court clarified that in such cases, possession is considered collective and not individual.

The plaintiffs also claimed that no concrete evidence was presented to support the claim that they distributed alcohol to voters. In response, the court cited the Supreme Court decision in State of Maharashtra v Salman Salim Khanwhich stated: “The evidence is a matter for trial and cannot be decided at the stage of quashing proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure..”

The High Court reiterated that it was not the Court's role at this stage to assess the validity of the evidence gathered by the prosecution; such issues would have to be addressed during the trial.

While examining the allegations under Section 171E of the IPC, which relates to bribery during elections, the court concluded that the facts set out in the FIR, even though politically motivated, prima facie met the legal requirements to constitute an offence under that provision. The court emphasised that the political context in which the complaint was filed did not exclude the possibility of an offence.

The plaintiffs further argued that the allegations were improbable, pointing out that it was unlikely that they would have left their vehicle unlocked with alcohol in it. The court rejected this argument and observed that the assessment of the credibility of such allegations must be done through a full trial. Justice Kainthla cited the Supreme Court judgment in Priyanka Jaiswal vs. the State of Jharkhandstressed: “The credibility of the allegations cannot be determined at this time; this is a court case.”

The court stressed that the trial court is the appropriate forum to examine the evidence once a chargesheet has been filed. Although the plaintiffs sought quashing of the FIR, the court stressed that the chargesheet had already been filed and so it was the responsibility of the trial court to examine the evidence collected.

Citing the Supreme Court ruling in Iqbal v. State of Uttar PradeshThe High Court stressed that the Court of First Instance must be permitted to examine the materials collected in the course of the investigation at that stage without interference from the High Court.

In conclusion, Justice Kainthla refused to quash the FIR and reiterated that the Supreme Court cannot conduct a mini-trial on the pretext of exercising its powers under Section 482 of the CrPC. The application to quash the FIR was dismissed, with the court clarifying that its observations were limited to the instant application and would have no bearing on the outcome of the trial.

Case Title: Virender Singh and others v. State of HP and another

Quote: 2024 LIveLaw (HP) 58

Click here to read/download the judgment