A vague, malicious FIR disclosing no offence against an advocate constitutes abuse of process and must be quashed.

The petitioner, an advocate, sought quashing of Pirbahor P.S. Case No. 639 of 2024, registered on 21 September 2024 under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The FIR alleged that she abused, assaulted and pressured the informant to withdraw S.T.R. No. 72 of 2020, and threatened her with dire consequences if she failed to do so.

The petitioner contended that she was the advocate representing the informant’s adversary and that the FIR was a malicious counterblast.

She relied on a complaint/FIR lodged by her on the same date, alleging that the informant had intercepted and threatened her while she was proceeding to her seat in the Civil Court.

Notice to opposite party no. 2 was validly served, but she did not appear.

Whether the allegations in Pirbahor P.S. Case No. 639 of 2024 disclosed the commission of offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the BNS against the petitioner.

Whether continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner amounted to an abuse of the process of the Court warranting quashing under the principles in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335.

Whether the FIR was a malicious prosecution initiated because the petitioner was counsel for the informant’s adversary.

The Court examined the FIR in light of Sections 126(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the BNS, which were the provisions invoked against the petitioner.

The Court applied the quashing principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, particularly categories (1), (2), (3) and (5), under which proceedings may be quashed where the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, do not disclose an offence; where the allegations do not disclose a cognizable offence; where the allegations are inherently improbable; or where the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide or instituted maliciously for an ulterior purpose.

Continuation of proceedings that do not disclose any offence and constitute an abuse of process may accordingly be quashed.

On examining the impugned FIR, the Court found the allegations against the petitioner to be “totally vague” and insufficient to constitute any offence under the invoked BNS provisions.

The Court considered the FIR lodged by the petitioner on the same date and the surrounding circumstances, including her role as advocate for the informant’s adversary. These circumstances supported the petitioner’s contention that the prosecution was malicious and had been initiated because of her professional representation.

Applying the relevant Bhajan Lal categories, the Court concluded that the FIR did not disclose the necessary criminality and that continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.

Invoking the principles in categories (1), (2), (3) and (5) of Bhajan Lal, the Court quashed Pirbahor P.S. Case No. 639 of 2024 and all consequential proceedings insofar as they related to the petitioner.