A complaint disclosing cognizable offences warrants investigation and cannot be quashed at the threshold.

The complainant, a director of Kamadhenu Ventures Cambodia Limited, alleged financial irregularities involving the petitioner, a former employee, including mishandling or deletion of company records and removal of company funds.

He further alleged that the petitioner demanded ₹50 lakh or a flat and threatened to disclose confidential information, and that threats were made concerning his son’s wedding and to others.

The complainant lodged a complaint on 10 July 2022, leading Sanjay Nagar Police to register Crime No. 0172/2022 under Sections 406, 420 and 384 of the IPC.

The petitioner sought to quash the complaint and proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 482 CrPC.

The complainant died while the petition was pending.

Whether the complaint and FIR disclosed a cognizable offence warranting investigation, or whether the proceedings should be quashed as an abuse of process.

Whether the petitioner’s material satisfied the Rajiv Thapar test for quashing criminal proceedings at the threshold.

The Court considered the High Court’s inherent and supervisory powers under Section 482 CrPC and Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, alongside the alleged offences under Sections 406, 420 and 384 IPC.

Applying Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor, it stated that quashing on the basis of material produced by an accused requires that the material be sterling and impeccable, rule out the complaint’s factual assertions, remain unrefuted or incapable of refutation, and show that continuing the proceedings would abuse the process of court or defeat justice; all four conditions must be met.

The Court also referred to Isaac Isanga Musumba v. State of Maharashtra on the elements of extortion, and Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of West Bengal on the need for dishonest intention at the time of the promise to establish cheating.

The Court held that the complaint contained allegations—including alleged theft of cheque books and tampering with accounts—that warranted investigation, and that the petitioner’s material was not of the sterling, impeccable quality required by Rajiv Thapar.

It therefore found the quashing test unsatisfied and considered it premature to decide whether the evidence would ultimately establish the ingredients of Sections 406, 420 or 384 IPC.

The Court stated that a complaint need not set out every relevant fact and that the truth of the complainant’s allegations could not be decided through a mini-trial at the FIR stage.

Finding no merit in the petitioner’s grounds, it dismissed the writ petition, while observing that the petitioner could approach the Court after an adverse investigation report.