Why Did the Delhi HC Quash the 2008 FIR Against Activist Prof. Madhu Kishwar?
Click to start listening
Synopsis
In a landmark decision, the Delhi High Court has annulled a nearly two-decade-old murder attempt case against renowned activist Prof. Madhu Kishwar. The court deemed the FIR as a retaliatory action stemming from an earlier conviction, raising critical questions about justice and the abuse of legal processes.
Key Takeaways
- The Delhi High Court quashed a 17-year-old FIR against Prof. Madhu Kishwar.
- The FIR was deemed a retaliatory act.
- The complainant had a prior conviction related to the incident.
- The court emphasized the abuse of legal processes.
- This ruling highlights the protection of individuals from unjust legal actions.
New Delhi, Oct 29 (NationPress) The Delhi High Court has dismissed a 17-year-old attempt to murder case against social activist and scholar Prof. Madhu Kishwar, stating that the FIR seemed to be a "maliciously motivated counterblast" to a prior case that led to the complainant's conviction.
In a ruling on the petition submitted by Prof. Kishwar under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), a single-judge Bench led by Justice Amit Mahajan asserted that proceeding with the criminal case filed at K.M. Pur Police Station for violations of Sections 307, 323, 506, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code would constitute "an abuse of the process of the court."
Justice Mahajan remarked that the FIR from 2008 by the complainant was a retaliatory action stemming from an earlier case initiated by Prof. Kishwar, originating from the same incident on December 31, 2007.
According to the Delhi High Court, "The subject FIR appears to be in the nature of defence and a maliciously motivated counterblast to FIR No. 666/2007 for wreaking vengeance upon the petitioner." The Court highlighted that the complainant had already faced conviction in 2019 related to the same conflict.
The trial court established that the complainant and her associates had created an "unlawful assembly" and assaulted Prof. Kishwar and her driver, Sheeshpal, while they were documenting illegal encroachments in the locality. Evidence was presented demonstrating the complainant's involvement in violent behavior, stating, "There is evidence to show that each of the accused persons, including Respondent No. 4, actively participated in the use of criminal force against the petitioner, with an object to prevent the petitioner from clicking photographs and from obstructing the accused persons’ illegal encroachment."
The court concluded that the defendants' actions constituted rioting and assault, with medical evidence supporting the injuries inflicted upon the victims.
Given these findings, the Delhi High Court determined that reviving or continuing the 2008 case would not serve any valid legal purpose. Justice Mahajan noted, "In such a factual background, setting the criminal law machinery in motion only for the reason that the complaint discloses commission of a cognizable offence would be an abuse of the process of the court."
He also stated: "Even if the allegations of the complainant are taken at the highest, considering the complainant’s conviction in a case arising out of the same incident, the same can at best be considered as self-defence or an altercation at the stage when the complainant has formed an unlawful assembly and caused injuries to the petitioner and another person when they were carrying out certain functions assigned to them."
Relying on several landmark Supreme Court rulings, the Delhi High Court concluded: "In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. Accordingly, FIR 162/2008 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed."
Point of View
We at NationPress recognize the importance of this ruling by the Delhi High Court. It highlights the critical need to ensure that the judicial system is not misused for personal vendettas. Upholding justice must always remain paramount, and this case underscores the significance of protecting individuals from unfounded legal actions.
NationPress
15/12/2025
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the basis for quashing the FIR?
The Delhi High Court found that the FIR was a retaliatory action against Prof. Madhu Kishwar stemming from an earlier case that resulted in the complainant's conviction.
Who was involved in the original incident?
The original incident involved Prof. Madhu Kishwar and her driver, Sheeshpal, who were documenting illegal encroachments when they were assaulted.
What legal sections were cited in the FIR?
The FIR cited violations of Sections 307, 323, 506, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
What did the trial court conclude?
The trial court concluded that the complainant and her associates formed an unlawful assembly and committed acts of rioting and assault against Prof. Kishwar.
What is the significance of this ruling?
The ruling emphasizes the importance of preventing the misuse of legal processes and ensures that justice is not compromised by personal vendettas.
