HIMACHAL PRADESH CRICKET ASSOCIATION VS THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH 2018.

CITATION	(S) (2018 INSC 1039),
Date	November 2nd 2018
Plaintiff/petitioner/appellant	Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association
Defendant /Respondent	The State Of Himachal Pradesh
Name of Court	Supreme Court of India
Judges	A.K. SIKRI, J

INTRODUCTION:

The democracy of today all over the world is substantially plague with the dreadful trend of power or due process. Abuse of process alludes to the misuse of legal power or  procedures for purposes other than what they were designed for, such as harassing individuals or entities, rather than addressing genuine legal concerns. This phenomenon involves the exploitation of legal mechanisms and procedures for purposes that diverge from their intended use. Concerns such as this, principally informs the supreme court’s intervention in this case under review. 

Abuse of process refers to the utilization of legal procedures and mechanisms in a manner that is inconsistent with their intended purpose. This can include the misuse of lawsuits, injunctions, and other legal tools to achieve objectives that are not aligned with the principles of justice and fairness.

The Supreme Court of India, in the landmark case of Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association (S) v. State Of Himachal Pradesh. dig deep into the issues of abuse of process and misuse of prosecutorial powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). This case centers around two First Information Reports (FIRs) filed against the appellants under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act). The appellants, including the Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association, questioned the appropriateness of these FIRs, alleging political vendetta and selective prosecution aimed at suppressing their legitimate activities in developing cricket infrastructure in the state and contrary to their constitutional rights.

FACT OF THE CASE:

The case involves the allotment of land to the Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association (HPCA) for the construction of a cricket stadium at Dharamshala. The allegations against the appellants include illegal activities, such as the demolition of a residential hostel and the construction of a commercial hotel without proper permission. The Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association (HPCA) was initially registered as a society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, on June 8, 1990. In 2001, the HPCA applied for land allotment to construct a world-class cricket stadium, which was granted with certain conditions. A lease deed was executed on July 29, 2002, for the land in Village Mouja, Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra. The HPCA constructed an international cricket stadium, which was duly completed.

In 2005, the HPCA was incorporated as a not-for-profit company under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956. The International Cricket Council (ICC) inspected the cricket infrastructure and recommended additional facilities, including a club house. The HPCA requested additional land adjacent to the stadium, which was approved by the authorities. A lease deed was executed for the additional land, and a club house was constructed, which was certified complete on March 10, 2011.

The HPCA also constructed a world-class motel, and the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) granted permission to convert the HPCA from a not-for-profit society to a not-for-profit company. However, after a change in the political executive, the new government initiated several actions against the HPCA, including filing FIRs. The HPCA filed a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the FIRs, which was dismissed by the High Court.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the FIRs filed against the appellants were a result of political vendetta and mala fide intentions?
2. Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the petition for quashing the FIRs?
3. Whether the prosecution sanction for certain officials was properly granted or withdrawn?
4. Whether the lease of government land for the construction of the cricket stadium and hotel was valid?
5. Whether the commercial use of the land was permissible under the lease agreement
6. Whether the appellants had committed any offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code?

JUDGEMENT: 

The Supreme Court of India having reviewed  the petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the appellants to quash the FIRs, stressed that the High Court had inaccurately and inadequately examined substantial evidence indicating that the FIRs were baseless  in their claims possibly influenced by political interest and other selfish motives. The court also examined the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to quash proceedings and the merits of the case, including allegations of conspiracy, wrongful gain, and misuse of official positions.

 The appellants presented compelling evidence showing that senior government officials involved in the lease agreements were not prosecuted, suggesting a selective targeting of lower-level officers to implicate the Cricket Association unduly. Considering the obvious absence of concrete evidence against the appellants and the absence of prosecution against key officials, the Supreme Court overturned and quashed both FIRs, thereby overruling the High Court’s decision.

The supreme court in it’s judgment extensively considered and referenced several past precedence and pivotal Supreme Court decisions that exemplifies the discretionary power of higher courts to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Notably among these cases were; State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma (1992 Supp (1) SCC 222), State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335) and Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. (2006 6 SCC 736). Particularly, the observation of the court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC) India ltd (2006, 6 SCC 736). Where the supreme addressing similar issues underlined that civil and criminal culpability should be clearly distinguished, particularly in situations involving business transactions and contractual duties. The Court went further to state that, provided the Act’s requirements are fulfilled, the dishonoring of checks under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, was determined to constitute a statutory violation. However, it made clear that criminal jurisdiction is not always triggered just because a check is returned. It was held that a criminal prosecution may only proceed if there was clear proof of the accused’s dishonest behavior and fraudulent intents. The Court noted that further offenses such as forgery and misrepresentation require specific and substantial evidence to support them. It reaffirmed that, absent criminal intent, a contract violation or failure to pay dues does not result in criminal culpability. It is a misuse of the legal system to file baseless criminal accusations in these situations.

The Court went on to say that the aggrieved party’s civil remedies should not be disregarded. The start of criminal proceedings is not prohibited by the existence of civil liability or remedies; however, they should not be utilized as a substitute for civil litigation or as a tool to exert pressure on the other party.

Relying on the above precedence, which collectively established that Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to prevent abuse of the legal process and to ensure substantial justice. The Court emphasized that the power to quash proceedings should be exercised sparingly, only in cases where there is clear evidence of misuse, lack of criminality, or violation of fundamental rights.

REASONING 

The Supreme Court’s reasoning in this case was promised on several core legal observation such as:

Absence of Criminal Intent: The appellants demonstrated that the leases were granted following formal procedures and with appropriate approvals. The token rent of Re.1/- per month was within the discretionary powers provided under the H.P. Lease Rules, 1993, specifically the proviso to Rule 8(1).

Selective Prosecution: The appellants highlighted the non-prosecution of senior officials involved in the lease allocations, despite their central role. This selective approach suggested ulterior motives lacking in objective legal grounds.

Politically Motivated Allegations: Although the High Court dismissed claims of political vendetta based on FIR’s filings and initial investigations, the Supreme Court found the appellants’ arguments substantiated by the procedural irregularities and lack of focus on high-level officials.

Exercise of Section 482: The Court reiterated that Section 482 is meant to be a safeguard against misuse of legal processes. Given the absence of concrete evidence against the appellants and the apparent selective targeting, the Supreme Court deemed the exercise of Section 482 justified to prevent injustice.

CONCLUSIONS:

The Apex Court’s decision in Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association vs State Of Himachal Pradesh serves significantly as a pivotal reference in understanding the judicious use of Section 482 Cr.P.C for the attainable of the justice intended by the section as put forward by the drafts man. The Court emphasized that while the Inherent powers under this section are extensive, their exercise must be cautious, ensuring that they serve the true ends of justice rather than being misused as instruments for ulterior motives. By over ruling the FIRs against the Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association, the Supreme Court reechoed and reinforced the principles of fair prosecution and the necessity of robust evidence before proceeding with criminal charges. This the court noted stressing that the standard must be beyond reasonable doubt to grand criminal conviction. This judgment not only protects organizations and individuals from unwarranted legal actions but also upholds the integrity of the judicial process against potential abuses.

This judgment has profound implications for the application of Section 482 Cr.P.C. in India as it  tends to boost and strengthens Judicial oversight in prosecution by setting a clear standards of precedent, the Supreme Court empowers higher courts to scrutinize lower courts’ decisions more rigorously, ensuring that prosecutions are not tools for political or personal vendettas as the court cannot be used as an engine or machinery of fraud whatsoever.

The ruling also by implications has the propensity of encouraging adherence to due process as it underscores the necessity for transparent and unbiased legal proceedings, discouraging selective prosecution and misuse of legal frameworks to target specific entities or individuals unjustly.

The Supreme Court also in the course of the judgement provided ample guidance on the  usage of section 482.  The judgment provides a detailed framework for when it is appropriate to invoke Section 482, emphasizing its role in quashing proceedings that lack substantive legal merit or are tainted by any form procedural irregularities or informed by malice.

REFERENCE:

Supreme Court India law report.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/31538746

https://thelegallock.com/case-brief-m-s-indian-oil-corporation-vs-m-s-nepc-india-ltd

This article is written by Akogwu Agada Joshua, a student from University of Nigeria, Nsukka and an intern under Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.