Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2021) SCC Online SC 315 reiterates parameters laid down in celebrated decision of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. Seven Principles enunciated in Paragraph 102 of Bhajan Lal [Two-Member Bench] are actually quoted with approval in Neeharika [Three-Member Bench]. Paragraph 37 of Neeharika extracts from Bhajan Lal, Paragraph 102(7):
“Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance… and with a view to spite… due to private and personal grudge.”
High Court has given elaborate reasons as to how allegations of bank fraud were developed during proceedings concerning allegations of election fraud. High Court was perfectly justified in granting interim protection.
– Hon’ble Justice V. Ramasubramanian, A.P. Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank Shareholders Welfare Association v. Ramesh Kumar Bung, [Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 3869 of 2021].
_____
Also see, Babu Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka, [Criminal Appeal No. 252 of 2022] decided on 18.02.2022.
_____
C.A. Sundaram, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for Chirag Sen and Lakshya Sen, contended, this is a textbook instance of abuse of process instigated by personal hostility and designed to harass for reasons wholly extraneous to law. Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque, (2005) 1 SCC 122 reiterated, where allegations are inherently improbable and no case is made out, continuation of proceedings amounts to abuse of process. Courts must not remain passive in face of manifest injustice. State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 recognized, where a criminal proceeding is instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, Court has a duty to interdict such abuse. Court has repeatedly cautioned against permitting criminal law to be used as a weapon of harassment. The present case is illustrative of how criminal process may be misused to achieve a collateral objective under guise of legality.
– Hon’ble Justice Aravind Kumar, Chirag Sen v. State of Karnataka, [Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 9824 of 2025] decided on 28.07.2025.
_____
Recently, in Vishal Noble Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1680 this Court held, Courts have to be vigilant to ensure machinery of criminal justice is not misused for achieving oblique motives and agendas. Tacitly endorsing such misuse only unnecessarily burdens Courts and criminal justice system.
– Hon’ble Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Urmila Devi v. Balram, [Criminal Appeal No. 3300 of 2025] decided on 31.07.2025.
_____
We find it apposite to mention observations of this Court in Vishal Noble Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1680 wherein it was observed, in recent years machinery of criminal justice is being misused by certain persons for their vested interests and for achieving their oblique motives and agenda. Courts have therefore to be vigilant against such tendencies.
– Hon’ble Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Arshad Neyaz Khan v. State of Jharkhand, [Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.3606 of 2024] decided on 24.09.2025.
The Last Word 