The Delhi High Court has dismissed a 17-year-old attempt to murder case against academician Madhu Kishwar, stating that the FIR was driven by malicious intent for revenge. The court highlighted that initiating criminal proceedings solely because the complaint indicates a cognizable offence constitutes an abuse of the court’s process. Justice Amit Mahajan noted that even if the complainant’s claims are considered valid, they could only be viewed as self-defense or an altercation since the complainant had formed an unlawful assembly that resulted in injuries to Kishwar and another individual during their official duties.
The ruling was made on October 16 in response to a petition from Kishwar seeking to quash an FIR filed against her in June 2008, which included charges of attempt to murder, voluntary causing hurt, and criminal intimidation under the Indian Penal Code. This FIR was linked to a confrontation that occurred between Kishwar and the complainant’s family on December 31, 2007. The complainant accused Kishwar of instructing her driver to hit her and her family with a vehicle during a dispute regarding the alleged allocation of shops in Sewa Nagar Market. It was also claimed that Kishwar and her associates assaulted the complainant and her family, causing serious injuries.
However, Kishwar’s legal representative argued that the FIR was a retaliatory action in response to an FIR previously filed by Kishwar against the complainant. Kishwar’s counsel maintained that she was authorized to oversee civil order in the area and report unauthorized constructions, claiming that the complainant’s son led a gang that had illegally taken control of part of the area, thus creating a conflict of interest against Kishwar. According to the counsel, when Kishwar and some volunteers began taking photographs in the market, the complainant and her family initiated a fight and attacked Kishwar and her driver. The high court observed that the complainant had already been convicted by the trial court in connection with the FIR filed by Kishwar.
The court noted that the trial court’s judgment indicated that the complainant, along with others, had formed an unlawful assembly to obstruct Kishwar from taking photographs and had beaten both her and her driver, leading to the complainant’s conviction. The court concluded that the FIR in question seemed to be a defensive measure and a maliciously motivated retaliation against Kishwar, with both FIRs relating to the incident on December 31, 2007, and the complainant’s conviction appearing to have reached a conclusion.