Read Time: 06 minutes
"The law is a sacrosanct entity that exists to serve the ends of justice, and the courts, as protectors of the law and servants of the law, must always ensure that frivolous cases do not pervert the sacrosanct nature of the law...", the Supreme Court has observed.
The Supreme Court last week remarked that while inordinate delay in itself may not be ground for quashing of a criminal complaint, unexplained inordinate delay must be taken into consideration as a very crucial factor as grounds for quashing a criminal complaint.
A division bench made these observations while allowing an appeal filed by a businessman, Hasmukhlal Vora whose plea under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the criminal complaint against him and his company was dismissed.
In 2013, Vora had purchased 75 Kg of pyridoxal-5-phosphate (as 3 x 25Kg packs) from one M/s Antoine & Becouerel Organic Chemical Co. The Drug Inspector, Kodambakkam Range, had inspected his premises and alleged contravention of S.18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 read with Rule 65(5)(1)(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules 1945.
It was claimed that Vora broke up the bulk quantity of pyridoxal-5-phosphate and sold it to different distributors.
In 2016, the Drug Inspector issued a show cause memo to Vora after nearly three years. After a further lapse of one year and four months, a complaint was filed against Vora and his company.
"There has been a gap of more than four years between the initial investigation and the filing of the complaint, and even after lapse of substantial amount of time, no evidence has been provided to sustain the claims in the complaint....", a bench comprising of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Krishna Murari noted.
Court further opined that the authorities had provided no explanation for the extraordinary delay of more than four years between the initial site inspection, the show cause notice, and the complaint.
In fact, the absence of such an explanation only prompts the Court to infer some sinister motive behind initiating the criminal proceedings, the Top Court added.
Adding that while the court did not expect a full-blown investigation at the stage of a criminal complaint, however, it said that in such cases where the accused had been subjected to the anxiety of a potential initiation of criminal proceedings for such a length of time, it was only reasonable for the court to expect bare-minimum evidence from the Investigating Authorities.
"At the cost of repetition, we again state that the purpose of filing a complaint and initiating criminal proceedings must exist solely to meet the ends of justice, and the law must not be used as a tool to harass the accused. The law, is meant to exist as a shield to protect the innocent, rather than it being used as a sword to threaten them...", said the bench while quashing the complaint filed against Vora.
Case Title: HASMUKHLAL D. VORA & ANR. vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU
Please Login or Register
