NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has said cases of those litigants who have no regard for the truth and those who indulge in suppressing material facts need to be thrown out of the court.
The court emphasised if material facts and documents are suppressed in a complaint filed under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the complainant cannot be allowed to set criminal law in motion.
SC Slams Litigants for Suppressing Facts, Quashes Cheque Bounce Case
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan quashed criminal proceedings in a case of cheque dishonour, holding setting criminal law in motion by suppressing material facts and documents is nothing but an abuse of the process of law.
After considering facts of the matter, the court, in its judgment, said the High Court ought to have interfered and quashed the complaint as this was a case where very material documents in the form of two letters addressed by the appellant were suppressed in the complaint and the statement on oath under Section 200 CrPC.
"Setting criminal law in motion is a serious matter. The accused faces serious consequences in the sense that he has to defend himself in the trial," the bench said.
The court also pointed out it is settled law that a litigant who, while filing proceedings in the court, suppresses material facts or makes a false statement, cannot seek justice from the court.
Supreme Court: Misuse of Criminal Law by Hiding Facts is Abuse of Process
"The facts suppressed must be material and relevant to the controversy, which may have a bearing on the decision making," the bench pointed out.
The bench allowed a plea by Rekha Sharad Ushir against the Bombay High Court's order of December 18, 2023.
It respondent Saptashrungi Mahila Nagari Sahkari Patsansta Ltd has suppressed the reply of November 28, 2016 and the letter of December 13, 2016 sent by the appellant’s advocate with regard to dishonour of cheque to the sum of Rs 27,27,460 out of an overdraft facility.
"The respondent made out a false case that the appellant did not reply to the demand notice. Moreover, the case that the documents as demanded were supplied is not pleaded in the complaint and statement under Section 200 of CrPC," the bench said.
A case was belatedly made out for the first time by filing an additional affidavit on January 9, 2025 that statements of loan account sought by the appellant were furnished to her and her signature appears on the statements, the court said.
The stand taken in January 2025 that the statement of accounts was supplied on November 29, 2016 is clearly an "afterthought," the bench said.
The bench felt, had the complete facts been disclosed, the Magistrate could have dismissed the complaint by exercising power under Section 203 of CrPC, as the appellant could not have replied to the statutory notice without looking at the documents relied upon.
The court pointed out, after a complaint is filed under Section 200 of the CrPC (corresponding provisions of Section 223 under Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), the Magistrate is duty-bound to examine the complainant on oath and witnesses, if any, present and reduce the substance of such examination into writing. What is reduced into writing is required to be signed by the complainant and witnesses, if any, the bench said.
In its observations, the bench said, "Recording the complainant's statement on oath under Section 200 of the CrPC is not an empty formality. The object of recording the complainant's statement and witnesses, if any, is to ascertain the truth. The Magistrate is duty-bound to put questions to the complainant to elicit the truth. The examination is necessary to enable the court to satisfy itself whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused".
