The Delhi High Court recently condemned the widespread practice of lodging First Information Reports (FIRs) with inflated or exaggerated allegations, warning that the criminal justice system cannot be misused to settle personal vendettas. The Court observed that initiating criminal proceedings lightly — especially under serious criminal provisions without an adequate factual or evidentiary foundation — not only undermines the purpose of criminal law but also results in prolonged hostility, needless litigation, and an avoidable drain on judicial resources.
The remarks came in a case where a 2016 FIR had been filed against certain persons by a woman alleging assault and sexual harassment. Over time, despite counter-allegations by both sides, the parties reportedly reconciled, and the complainant admitted that parts of the FIR had been exaggerated and filed under ill advice. The accused had also responded by filing a cross-FIR. Noting this, the Court concluded that continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the court process. It invoked its power under the relevant procedural law to quash the FIR and all associated proceedings. The Court held that when a dispute arises from personal enmity, misunderstanding or animosity, and both parties have resolved their differences amicably, criminal law should not be permitted to linger as a weapon of vengeance.
In its judgment, the Court underlined that courts must exercise restraint and prudence in allowing long-pending FIRs to survive where the underlying grievance has been settled or shown to be inflated. It emphasised that invoking serious criminal charges must be backed by credible material and honest intent; otherwise, there is a real danger such proceedings will be misused to harass or intimidate individuals, disturb social harmony, and clog the criminal justice system.
This decision is part of a broader judicial reaffirmation of the principle that the criminal justice machinery should not become a default forum for resolving personal disputes. It joins earlier rulings where courts — including the same High Court — have quashed FIRs filed on the basis of false or frivolous complaints when the parties reached settlement, or where allegations were patently padded to punish or blackmail the other side. By doing so, the judiciary is attempting to safeguard the integrity of criminal law, ensure that only genuine offences are prosecuted, and protect individuals from harassment through malicious litigation.
The Court’s order sends a clear message: criminal law is not a substitute for civil disputes — personal grievances and neighbourhood quarrels must not be transformed into criminal prosecutions without serious scrutiny. The underlying ethos is that justice should not be used as a means of revenge or vindictiveness, but rather as a tool for truth, fairness and social order.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.