A Section 308 IPC charge cannot stand without material showing intent or knowledge to cause culpable homicide.

Petitioner No. 1 alleged that Respondent No. 2 had induced her to invest ₹38,50,000 in a proposed biographical film that was never produced.

She filed an earlier complaint against him under Sections 406/420/34 IPC; after that complaint, Respondent No. 2 initiated the present case against the petitioners, alleging assault, theft and related offences.

The present proceeding arose from a complaint referred for investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC.

The High Court noted deficiencies in the complaint’s account of prior approaches to the police and in the Magistrate’s order, but also considered the charge-sheet and evidence collected during investigation, including witness statements.

The judgment describes the case as Goaltore Police Station Case No. 96 of 2022 at the outset, although its concluding order refers to Ghatal Police Station Case No. 96 of 2022.

Whether the proceeding should be quashed against Petitioner No. 1 where the materials collected disclosed no specific or other evidence implicating her.

Whether the charge under Section 308 IPC could continue against any petitioner in the absence of material indicating the requisite intention or knowledge.

Whether the proceeding should continue against Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 for the remaining alleged offences, given the incriminating material collected during investigation.

Section 482 CrPC empowers the High Court to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice.

Under State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, proceedings may be quashed in specified categories, including where the allegations and supporting materials do not disclose an offence or where the proceeding is manifestly malicious.

Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. requires an application under Section 156(3) CrPC to disclose prior approaches under Sections 154(1) and 154(3), supported by the relevant documents and an affidavit; the Magistrate’s order should reflect application of judicial mind, though detailed reasons are unnecessary.

Section 308 IPC requires an act accompanied by such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances, that causing death would amount to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

The judgment also relied on Sharif Ahmed v. State of Uttar Pradesh concerning the need for a clear and complete charge-sheet identifying the alleged crime, accused persons and evidence.

The Court found that the parties’ hostile relationship and the earlier complaint by Petitioner No. 1 raised the possibility that the later case was retaliatory.

It also noted that the Section 156(3) application lacked supporting documents demonstrating compliance with the prior-complaint requirements, and that the Magistrate had not expressed reasons for directing investigation.

However, the investigation produced material—including witness statements and an injury report—which, on a prima facie assessment, supported proceeding against Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 for some of the alleged offences; the Court would not test that evidence through a mini-trial.

No material showed the intention or knowledge required for Section 308, so that charge could not stand against any petitioner.

As to Petitioner No. 1, the Court found no material implicating her in any alleged offence and concluded that continuing the proceeding against her would constitute an abuse of process.

The proceeding was quashed in its entirety against Petitioner No. 1; the charge under Section 308 IPC was set aside against all petitioners.

The proceeding against Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 was permitted to continue for the remaining offences in accordance with law.