Delhi HC Quashes 17-Year-Old Case Against Activist Madhu Kishwar

Allowing the petition filed by Prof. Kishwar under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), a single-judge Bench of Justice Amit Mahajan held that continuing the criminal proceedings registered at K.M. Pur Police Station for offences under Sections 307, 323, 506, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code would amount to "an abuse of the process of the court."

Justice Mahajan observed that the 2008 FIR filed by the complainant was a retaliatory move against an earlier case lodged by Prof. Kishwar, which arose from the same incident on December 31, 2007.

"The subject FIR appears to be in the nature of defence and a maliciously motivated counterblast to FIR No. 666/2007 for wreaking vengeance upon the petitioner," noted the Delhi High Court. It further emphasised that the complainant in the present case had already been convicted in 2019 in connection with the same altercation.

The trial court had found that the complainant and her associates had formed an "unlawful assembly" and assaulted Prof. Kishwar and her driver, Sheeshpal, when they were documenting illegal encroachments in the area. It recorded that tangible evidence had been produced showing the complainant's involvement in violent conduct and said, "There is evidence to show that each of the accused persons, including Respondent No. 4, actively participated in the use of criminal force against the petitioner, with an object to prevent the petitioner from clicking photographs and from obstructing the accused persons' illegal encroachment."

The trial court had concluded that the accused persons' acts amounted to rioting and assault, with the medical evidence corroborating the injuries sustained by the victims.

In light of the above findings, the Delhi High Court held that reviving or continuing the 2008 proceedings would serve no legitimate legal purpose. "In such a factual background, setting the criminal law machinery in motion only for the reason that the complaint discloses commission of a cognizable offence would be an abuse of the process of the court," Justice Mahajan observed.

He further added: "Even if the allegations of the complainant are taken at the highest, considering the complainant's conviction in a case arising out of the same incident, the same can at best be considered as self-defence or an altercation at the stage when the complainant has formed an unlawful assembly and caused injuries to the petitioner and another person when they were carrying out certain functions assigned to them."

The Delhi High Court, relying on several landmark Supreme Court judgments, concluded: "In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. Accordingly, FIR 162/2008 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed."

- IANS