Judiciary Cannot Entertain Fictional Complaints; Law is Not a Tool for Personal Vendetta: Delhi High Court Criticizes Petitioner for Fabricated Testimony

In a strongly worded judgment delivered on March 6, 2025, the Delhi High Court dismissed a criminal petition filed by C. Sharma, ruling that the allegations made in the complaint were so inherently improbable and absurd that no prudent person could conclude that a case was made out. The Court held that "judicial time cannot be wasted on baseless and fictional complaints that lack any coherence or factual foundation."

The petitioner had challenged the orders of the Metropolitan Magistrate and the Sessions Court, both of which had dismissed her complaint for lack of merit. The High Court found no reason to interfere, ruling that "the complaint not only defied logic but also bordered on fantasy, making it wholly unworthy of judicial consideration."

"25 Gunshot Wounds, Instant Healing with Homeopathy, and a Police Conspiracy – A Fictional Narrative Unfit for Legal Proceedings"

The petitioner had approached the Metropolitan Magistrate in 2009, alleging a violent attack involving multiple accused persons, including police officials, lawyers, and private individuals. The complaint contained extravagant claims, including:

•    Being shot 25 times but surviving due to homeopathic medicines.
•    Having bullets removed from her body without surgery.
•    Feigning death to escape the assailants, only to be miraculously revived.
•    Calling the police multiple times during the assault, but the police ignoring her plight.

The Trial Court dismissed the complaint in 2012, observing that it was entirely improbable, absurd, and unworthy of summoning the accused. The Sessions Court upheld this ruling in 2013, stating that "the allegations appear to be the product of a deeply troubled imagination rather than factual events."

The High Court concurred with the lower courts, ruling that "a complaint based on fiction rather than facts cannot be entertained. Courts must not become forums for personal vendettas or irrational grievances."

"Law Cannot Be Used to Settle Imaginary Grievances – High Court Warns Against Abuse of Judicial Process"

The Court noted that "the petitioner changed her version multiple times, added and removed accused persons arbitrarily, and included high-ranking government officials without any credible basis."

Expressing strong displeasure, the High Court ruled that "the legal system must be protected from frivolous and vindictive litigation. A person cannot be allowed to misuse the courts to harass others based on baseless, improbable, and self-contradictory claims."

Referring to Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi (1976 AIR 1947), the Court reaffirmed that: "When allegations in a complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable, the court must refuse to proceed further, as no case is made out against the accused."

The Court further ruled that "issuing summons in such a case would be a travesty of justice and an abuse of legal process."

"Courts Must Dismiss Complaints That Waste Judicial Time and Harass the Innocent"

The High Court ruled that "no court is bound to entertain a complaint merely because it is filed. Judicial discretion must be exercised to filter out cases that are plainly false, exaggerated, or driven by ulterior motives."

Rejecting the petition outright, the Court observed: "A complaint where the complainant miraculously survives 25 gunshot wounds, heals overnight with homeopathy, and fabricates a police conspiracy without any evidence, cannot be entertained in any judicial forum."

Final Judgment: Petition Dismissed, No Further Proceedings Permitted
Dismissing the case, the High Court ruled: "The orders of the Metropolitan Magistrate and the Sessions Court were correct in dismissing the complaint. The present petition is an abuse of the process of law and stands dismissed with no further relief to the petitioner."

The Delhi High Court’s ruling sends a strong message that "the judiciary cannot be used as a tool for personal vendettas or imaginary grievances. Courts must focus on genuine disputes, not on fictional complaints that lack any basis in reality."

By rejecting the frivolous and irrational petition, the judgment ensures that "precious judicial time is not wasted on baseless litigation, and innocent individuals are not subjected to unwarranted harassment under the guise of criminal proceedings."

Date of Decision: 06 March 2025