Introduction:
The adoption of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) is the need of the hour, which has strengthened Indian Legal procedures ensuring in delivering speedy trial with better efficiency and accountability. It has played a pivotal role by including the use of technology and forensic sciences in the investigation of Crime and furnishing and lodging of information, service of summons, etc.,through electronic communication. And in addition to the procedures specified above BNSS has prescribed specific time-lines for time bound investigation, trial and pronouncement of judgements. Amongst its numerous speedy and innovative provisions, Section 248 emerges as a noteworthy provision, empowering courts to dismiss cases that lack any basis for being heard, thereby safeguarding individuals against frivolous or malicious prosecution. This exposition will make professionals, legal enthusiasts and scholars with In-depth awareness of the certain provision.
Understanding Frivolous / Malicious Prosecution :
You all must have heard these terms in one way or the other in day to day instances of you life. The term “Malicious prosecution” is certainly not defined anywhere but it can be interpreted from Section 248 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023 earlier Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [REPEALED] as well as under LAW OF TORTS.
The general meaning of the term “Malicious Prosecution” refers to a situation where a person is wrongly and maliciously subjected to legal proceedings without any reasonable or probable cause.
The Legal extract of Section 211 of IPC, 1860 and Section 248 BNS , 2013:
Section 211 – False charge of offence made with intent to injure
Whoever, with intent to cause injury to any person, institutes or causes to be instituted any criminal proceeding against that person, or falsely charges any person with having committed an offence, knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for such proceeding or charge against that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;
and if such criminal proceeding be instituted on a false charge of an offence punishable with death, 1[imprisonment for life], or imprisonment for seven years or upwards, shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 248 – False charge of offence made with intent to injure
Whoever, with intent to cause injury to any person, institutes or causes to be instituted any criminal proceeding against that person, or falsely charges any person with having committed an offence, knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for such proceeding or charge against that person,–
(a) shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine which may extend to two lakh rupees, or with both;
(b) if such criminal proceeding be instituted on a false charge of an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for ten years or upwards, shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Malicious Prosecution or False Charge can be determined as a wrong attempt made by a person against another with an intent of causing harm or hurt to them or to cause wastage of time.
The section explains the same as: anyone who, with the knowledge that a certain act will cause injury to another person, institutes criminal proceedings against them or charges them with wrongful allegations, with the knowledge that this certain act will cause some injury to the person or institutes a criminal proceeding against them or charges them with wrongful allegations regarding the commitment of the wrongful act, still does the act will have to bear certain consequences.
The certain consequences that wrongdoers has to face are :
• Punishment of imprisonment upto 5 years or fine upto 2 lakh rupees or both
• If the proceeding is of serious nature that have a punishment of Death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment upto 10 years then the punishment may extend upto 10 years of imprisonment and shall also be liable to fine as described by the Hon’ble Court
Examples : Imagine two neighbours, A and B, who often argue. One day, out of spite, A files a police report claiming that B broke into his house and stole money, even though A being innocent and knows this never happened. Because of the false report, B has to go through police questioning and court visits. Later, it becomes clear that the complaint was made up only to trouble B. So here B has maliciously prosecuted A.
Judicial pronouncements :
West Bengal State Electricity Board vs. Dilip Kumar Ray (24.11.2006 – SC) : MANU/SC/8716/2006
Malicious Prosecution – Malice. Malice means an improper or indirect motive other than a desire to vindicate public justice or a private right. It need not necessarily be a feeling of enmity, spite or ill-will. It may be due to a desire to obtain a collateral advantage. The principles to be borne in mind in the case of actions for malicious prosecutions are these:-Malice is not merely the doing a wrongful act intentionally but it must be established that the defendant was actuated by mains animus, that is to say, by spite of ill- will or any indirect or improper motive. But if the defendant hod reasonable or probable cause of launching the criminal prosecution no amount of malice will make him liable for damages. Reasonable and probable cause must be such as would operate on the mind of a discreet and reasonable man; ‘malice’ and ‘want of reasonable and probable cause.’ have reference to the state of the defendant’s mind at the date of the initiation of criminal proceedings and the onus rests on the plaintiff to prove them.
Santokh Singh vs. Izhar Hussain and Ors. (25.04.1973 – SC) : MANU/SC/0165/1973
“ The High Court also seems to have committed serious error in ignoring that in the appellant’s statement he had clearly stated that he had not seen amongst the assailants the accused Izhar Hussain present in the court. In face of this statement, there was no question of the appellant having made any accusation against Izhar Hussain in his deposition. In any event, considering the entire statement of the appellant it is not understood how it can be considered expedient in the interest of justice to direct the appellant’s prosecution. Every incorrect or false statement does not make it incumbent on the court to order prosecution. The court has to exercise judicial discretion in the light of all the relevant circumstances when it determines the question of expediency. The court orders prosecution in the larger interest of the administration of justice and not to gratify feelings of personal revenge or vindictiveness or to serve the ends of a private party. Too frequent prosecutions for such offences tend to defeat its very object. It is only in glaring cases of deliberate falsehood where conviction is highly likely, that the court should direct prosecution. The High Court seems to have misunderstood the appellant’s evidence and has also failed to apply its mind to the question of expediency. Reference by the High Court to identification parade is also somewhat inappropriate. Identification at test parades could by no stretch be considered to amount to a false charge against Izhar Hussain as contemplated by Section 211, I.P.C. Such identification is not substantive evidence and it can only be used as corroborative of the statement in court. The identification parade thus could not improve the prosecution case.
13. Besides, we entertain considerable doubt if the High Court had at all jurisdiction to make an order of complaint as it has done. It was either the court which tried the original offences or a court to which the trial court was subordinate, that could make such an order. The court of the Additional District Magistrate would not seem to be subordinate to the High Court as provided by Section 195(3), Cr.P.C. Kuldip Singh v. State of Punjab MANU/SC/0036/1956 : 1956CriLJ781 . Two courts below having in their judicial discretion declined to direct the prosecution of the appellant, on revision the High Court was, in our view, not at all justified in itself directing the filing of the complaint. At best, if it considered the orders of the two courts below tainted with a serious legal infirmity or manifest error resulting in grave miscarriage of justice, it could have, after quashing those orders, sent the case back to the trial court for reconsideration of the matter in accordance with law.
14. As a result of the foregoing discussion, we have no hesitation in allowing this appeal and setting aside the order of the High Court.”
Section 250 in Text and Context:
Section 250 – Discharge
(1) The accused may prefer an application for discharge within a period of sixty days from the date of commitment of the case under section 232.
(2) If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing.
The Underlying Justification :
The certain provision gives the power to Hon’ble Courts to discharge the accused of the charges that have been framed against him and record the reason for the same. However, certain points need to be kept in mind before discharging the case against the accused. If any of the following factors are detected by the courts, they have the authority to dismiss the case. Firstly, there must be no prima facie evidence supporting the allegations. Secondly, if the case appears vexatious, frivolous, or intended to harass rather than to seek justice, it may also be dismissed. Thirdly, where the complaint lacks credibility, material particulars, or lawful basis, dismissal is warranted. In essence, the judiciary ensures that only cases with genuine merit proceed, thereby preventing misuse of judicial process.
For better understanding, it may be stated that upon the following findings in the charges/allegations, the case can be dismissed :
1. Prima Facie Case
2. No Sufficient Ground
3. Facts do not make out any Offence at all
Interplay of Malicious Prosecution and Discharge :
Malicious prosecution means to be wrongly accusing of someone to be guilty of committing of wrongful act which the person has not actually done or the person was not part of the particular act . On the other hand discharge refers to the stage in criminal procedure where the court can free an accused if there is no sufficient ground to proceed. Putting them together under the same roof reflects the power that the law acquires to prevent any unnecessary harassment.
The rules on discharge serve as an early shield for someone accused in a case that has no real basis. When the court discharges a person at the initial stage, it saves them from the stress and burden of going through a full trial. This also helps in stopping false or malicious prosecutions from moving forward.
While making it a tool for safeguarding the person being maliciously prosecuted there are chances that a person who is actually in the wrong get free while accusing the other and framing him as the wrong doer so the courts have to carefully balance between allowing genuine prosecutions and stopping those which are malicious or frivolous as the discharge is applicable on the discretion of the court only .
Discharge, therefore, serves as a vital safeguard by filtering out weak or false cases at the very beginning. This reduces the scope for malicious prosecution to continue into a lengthy trial, while at the same time protecting the rights of the accused and preserving the integrity of the justice system against misuse for personal vendetta.
The Logic Underpinning Section 250 :
The rationale behind the incorporation of Section 250 in the BNSS, 2023 lies in the fundamental objectives of the statute itself, namely to ensure fairness, prevent misuse of the legal process, and provide protection against baseless or malicious prosecution. This certain section grants power to the courts to dismiss the case Prima facie has not been found, which can be described through a legal maxim “Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea” – An act alone does not constitute guilt unless accompanied by a guilty mind.
Section 250 empowers courts to dismiss baseless cases at the very outset, preventing wastage of valuable judicial time and protecting innocent individuals from enduring years of unnecessary trial and hardship. The major reason of formation of this section is to maintain a balance between justice and protection.
In this way, Section 250 acts both as a safeguard against wrongful prosecutions and as a tool to promote judicial efficiency, upholding the constitutional promise of fairness and protection from misuse of the legal process.
Case Laws Emphasising Early Scrutiny of Complaints :
Onkar Nath Mishra and Ors. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors. (MANU/SC/0134/2008)
At the stage of framing charges, the court only needs to see if the material on record, taken at face value, shows the basic ingredients of the alleged offence. The court is not required to assess the evidence in depth or decide guilt. Even a strong suspicion, based on the available material, is enough to frame charges, though not to convict the accused.
Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and another (MANU/SC/0414/1978 )
“Certain principles laid down regarding framing of charges under Section 227 CrPC:
1. The Judge can sift and weigh evidence only to see if a prima facie case exists.
2. If the material shows grave suspicion against the accused, charges should be framed and trial should proceed.
3. The test of a prima facie case depends on the facts of each case. If two views are possible and the evidence raises only suspicion (not grave suspicion), the accused may be discharged.
4. The Judge must apply judicial mind, considering the broad probabilities, overall effect of evidence, and any basic infirmities, without acting as a mere mouthpiece of the prosecution. However, he should not conduct a detailed trial-level inquiry at this stage.”
State of Bihar vs. Ramesh Singh (02.08.1977 – SC) MANU/SC/0139/1977
“The High Court felt persuaded to take the view that the three circumstantial facts, even if proved, would not be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and then added “There may be strong suspicion against the opposite party, but the three circumstances which I have just mentioned above, cannot be said to be incompatible with the defence of the accused.” The said observation of the High Court is not quite apposite in the background of the law which we have enunciated above with reference to the provisions of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code.”
State of Tamil Nadu by Ins. of Police Vigilance and Anti Corruption vs. N. Suresh Rajan and Ors. (06.01.2014 – SC) MANU/SC/0011/2014
“It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging there from, taken at their face value, disclosed the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At that stage, the Court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the material on record. What needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. At that stage, even strong suspicion founded on material which leads the Court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged would justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence.”
CONCLUSION :
Section 248 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is a vital safeguard in India’s criminal justice system, It maintains a balance between the protecting the person who is not in the wrong and the genuine prosecutions not being hindered. By empowering the courts with such a crucial power is mostly considered to be a boon to the society as it prevents the misuse of the legal process, protects individuals from vexatious litigations, and saves valuable time. It strengthens the constitutional values of fairness, justice, with efficiency. In doing so, it safeguards individuals against undue hardship from baseless prosecutions and at last it marks a progressive step towards a more accountable and humane criminal justice system.
