M.N. OJHA & ORS. versus ALOK KUMAR SRIVASTAV & ANR.

M.N. OJHA & ORS. versus ALOK KUMAR SRIVASTAV & ANR.

The complaint against the bank officials did not disclose commission of any offence; it was lodged as a counter-blast to prior proceedings and FIR, and was intended to harass public servants in discharge of their duties. The magistrate took cognizance without examining the complaint and materials, and the High Court erred by refusing to exercise its jurisdiction under s.482 CrPC despite clear need to prevent abuse of process.

Parties
Appellant: M.N. Ojha & Ors.; Respondent: Alok Kumar Srivastav & Anr.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
21 August 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From High Court's Summary Dismissal of Petition to Quash Criminal Proceedings Under S.482 Cr PC
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Quashing of Criminal Proceedings, Abuse of Process, Liability of Guarantors, Powers of High Court Under S.482 Cr PC
Criminal Law Banking Law Procedural Law Quashing of Criminal Proceedings Abuse of Process Liability of Guarantors Powers of High Court Under S.482 Cr PC

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M.N. Ojha & Ors.

Appellant

Alok Kumar Srivastav & Anr.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From High Court's Summary Dismissal of Petition to Quash Criminal Proceedings Under S.482 Cr PC

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether criminal proceedings initiated by the guarantor against bank officials disclose any offence warranting prosecution
  2. 2 Whether the High Court erred in summarily dismissing the petition under s.482 CrPC without considering the merits
  3. 3 Whether complaint constitutes abuse of process aimed at harassing public servants

Ratio Decidendi

The complaint against the bank officials did not disclose commission of any offence; it was lodged as a counter-blast to prior proceedings and FIR, and was intended to harass public servants in discharge of their duties. The magistrate took cognizance without examining the complaint and materials, and the High Court erred by refusing to exercise its jurisdiction under s.482 CrPC despite clear need to prevent abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of the High Court set aside
  • Criminal proceedings arising out of Complaint Case No. 916 (c) of 2003 quashed