Prosecution Cannot Be Weaponized Against Witnesses: Supreme Court Quashes Vindictive Second FIR

“Magistrate Made an Aborted Attempt to Create a Third Case Not Even Alleged by Complainant,” Supreme Court of India delivered a strong message against the misuse of criminal process for personal or institutional vendetta, by quashing the summoning of Vineet Chatwal, a prosecution witness in a bribery case, who was later made an accused in a second FIR arising out of the same factual matrix. The Court held that such prosecution was a “vindictive attempt” to silence a witness and amounted to “abuse of process of law”.

The bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, while deciding Vineet Chatwal v. State of Orissa & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 4837 of 2025, allowed the appeal and set aside both the Magistrate’s summoning order and the Orissa High Court’s order affirming it.

“Even If Allegations Are Accepted, Only Section 212 IPC Could Arise” – Supreme Court Dismantles Misapplication of Penal Provisions

At the heart of the dispute was FIR No.24 dated 14.04.2021, registered against the appellant after he gave adverse testimony against the university management in a CBI-led bribery case involving delivery of ₹10 lakh to GST officials. The first FIR (No.17/2021), registered by CBI, named the appellant as a prosecution witness, and his statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC were duly recorded.

However, soon after his deposition, a second FIR was lodged, accusing him of harboring the main accused, Himanshu Shekhar Kabi. Notably, Kabi himself was not even named in this second FIR, which focused solely on allegations against the appellant. The police, after investigation, filed a Cancellation Report, but the University’s Protest Petition led to the Magistrate taking cognizance of multiple offences under the IPC and the IT Act.

The Supreme Court took a dim view of this:

“The main allegation against the appellant was that he did not take any action against the main accused… This action, even according to the Protest Petition, would constitute an offence under Section 212 IPC and not the provisions under which the learned Judicial Magistrate finally took cognizance.”

Terming the Magistrate’s reasoning “strange”, the Court observed that:

“He made an aborted attempt to make out a third case which the complainant himself has not alleged. The High Court also falls in error in upholding that order.”

Forgery and IT Act Charges Found Completely Baseless

The Supreme Court also categorically rejected the invocation of serious charges like Sections 465, 468, 469, and 471 IPC (related to forgery) and Sections 66(C), 66(D), and 72 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, holding that no material existed to support such allegations.

“No specific act of forgery or falsification of electronic records was alleged. The appellant was neither the author nor the user of any allegedly false document.”

Thus, the Court ruled that the Magistrate's cognizance of such offences was entirely unfounded in law and fact, and amounted to judicial overreach.

Court Condemns Vindictive Prosecution and Affirms Rule of Law

In a stern rebuke of the attempt to target a prosecution witness, the Court underscored a fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence — prosecution cannot be used as a tool of retaliation. Referring to the larger implications on the administration of justice, the Court warned:

“Initiation of separate prosecution against the appellant through FIR No.24, dated 14.04.2021 (Second FIR) is wholly unwarranted and would amount to abuse of the process of law.”

Further clarifying the scope of ongoing legal proceedings, the Court left open the possibility for authorities to take action if any incriminating material emerges in the original FIR (No.17/2021). It stated:

“This will not preclude the court of competent jurisdiction from looking into the incriminating material, if any, brought on record in the first FIR… and to proceed in accordance with law.”

Protection Against Judicial Harassment Reaffirmed

This ruling reinforces the constitutional protection against arbitrary criminal prosecution, especially when aimed at witnesses cooperating with law enforcement. The apex court made it clear that a second FIR on the same set of facts, especially when it is vindictive in nature, cannot be sustained under the law.

In its operative portion, the Court concluded:

“For the reasons aforestated, the instant appeal is allowed, the order dated 13.09.2022 of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Paralakhemundi and the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 16.07.2024 are hereby set aside and the Cancellation Report… is accepted.”

Date of Decision: 12 November 2025