Procedural Errors Do Not Constitute Failure of Justice: Kerala High Court on Criminal Breach of Trust Case

Justice A. Badharudeen emphasizes substantive justice over procedural technicalities in dismissing quashing petition. The Kerala High Court has reaffirmed the validity of a criminal investigation and subsequent final report despite initial procedural lapses. In a recent ruling, Justice A. Badharudeen dismissed the petition seeking to quash proceedings against Don Paul, accused under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), emphasizing that such procedural errors do not constitute a failure of justice.

The case, originating from a complaint filed by the accused's wife, revolves around allegations of criminal breach of trust. The complaint detailed that substantial dowry, including Rs. 50 lakh and 75 sovereigns of gold, was given at the time of marriage. The accused allegedly misappropriated these assets, violating the trust placed in him. Following the complaint, an investigation was conducted, culminating in a final report alleging the commission of the offense under Section 406 IPC.

Preconditions for Seeking Investigation: Justice Badharudeen addressed the procedural requirements under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C), which mandates that applications seeking magistrate intervention for investigation must be supported by an affidavit and preceded by applications under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of Cr.P.C. These preconditions ensure that the complainant's allegations are verified for truthfulness before judicial resources are engaged.

The court referred to several landmark judgments, including the Supreme Court’s rulings in Babu Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka and Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which emphasize the necessity of adhering to these procedural steps to prevent misuse of judicial processes.

Substantive Justice Over Procedural Lapses: Despite acknowledging that the procedural prerequisites were not met, the court underscored that these lapses did not result in a miscarriage of justice. Citing Section 465 of Cr.P.C, Justice Badharudeen clarified that procedural errors or irregularities do not automatically invalidate judicial findings unless they have caused a failure of justice.

"Non-compliance with procedural prerequisites, in this case, does not vitiate the entire proceedings as there has been no failure of justice," the judgment stated, referencing the court’s discretion under Section 465 to uphold judicial orders if substantive justice has been served.

The court’s legal reasoning was rooted in balancing the adherence to procedural norms with the overarching goal of delivering substantive justice. It was noted that the petitioner did not challenge the procedural lapses at the appropriate stage but sought to quash the final report post-investigation. This delay was critical in the court's decision to dismiss the petition.

Justice Badharudeen remarked, "The mere fact that the complaint was filed directly to a higher authority without first approaching the SHO does not, by itself, invalidate the investigation or the final report. The principles of substantive justice take precedence over procedural formalities, provided no injustice is shown to have occurred."

The Kerala High Court's ruling reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring that technicalities do not obstruct the delivery of justice. By upholding the validity of the investigation despite procedural errors, the judgment sends a clear message about the importance of substantive justice. The decision is expected to influence future cases where procedural lapses are argued as grounds for invalidating judicial proceedings.

Date of Decision: May 21, 2024