After SIT Finds Eight Cases Fabricated, Chhattisgarh High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against Family; Recommends Action Against Police Officer

The petitioners invoked Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of Crime No. 243/2021 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Mungeli, under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471/34 IPC, together with Chargesheet No. 374/2021, Supplementary Chargesheet No. 1557/2024, the order framing charges and the consequential criminal case

The prosecution formed part of a series of eight criminal cases registered between 2019 and 2021 against substantially the same members of the petitioners’ family in different districts and police stations

The petitioners alleged that the proceedings were initiated pursuant to a personal dispute involving Respondent No. 10, Piyush Tiwari, and that successive complainants were connected with him

In Crime No. 243/2021, the petitioners were shown as arrested from “Jail” on 9 June 2021 and were granted bail on 28 October 2021

The State’s affidavit recorded that the Inspector General of Police had found all eight offences to be fabricated, noted the complicity of Respondent No. 3, and recorded negligence in the investigation of Crime No. 243/2021, resulting in departmental proceedings against the Investigating Officer

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR, chargesheet, order framing charges and consequential proceedings in Crime No. 243/2021 despite the filing of the chargesheet?

Whether the cumulative effect of the repeated criminal proceedings, successive arrests, subsequent SIT findings of fabrication, negligence in the investigation of the present case and official findings concerning Respondent No. 3 demonstrated mala fide or abuse of the criminal process?

Whether the petitioners were entitled to disciplinary or compensatory reliefs against the police authorities in the Section 482 proceedings?

The Court applied Section 482 CrPC, which preserves the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of any court and to secure the ends of justice; although the power is extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly, it remains available even after filing of a chargesheet where subsequent material demonstrates that continuation of the prosecution would cause manifest injustice

The Court relied principally on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, particularly the principle that criminal proceedings may be quashed where they are manifestly attended with mala fide or instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance arising from a private or personal grudge

The Court further applied the rule that multiplicity of FIRs, repeated implication of accused persons, personal relationships between complainants and interested parties, or arrest from custody do not individually establish mala fide; however, their cumulative effect may justify quashing where supported by substantial subsequent official material

The Court acknowledged that it could not conduct a mini-trial or determine the ultimate truth of the allegations

However, it considered Crime No. 243/2021 in the context of the entire sequence of eight prosecutions involving substantially the same family members

The repeated cases and arrests, the connection between the successive complainants and Respondent No. 10, and the petitioners’ arrest from jail were treated as relevant surrounding circumstances, though not independently decisive

The decisive factor was the subsequent official inquiry: the State’s own affidavit recorded that all eight offences were found fabricated, that Respondent No. 3 was implicated in the episode, and—specifically in Crime No. 243/2021—that the Investigating Officer had acted negligently and faced departmental proceedings

These findings materially undermined the bona fides of the prosecution and, when considered cumulatively with the other circumstances, brought the case within the mala fide and ulterior-motive category recognised in Bhajan Lal

The petition was allowed, and Crime No. 243/2021, registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Mungeli, under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471/34 IPC, along with Chargesheet No. 374/2021, Supplementary Chargesheet No. 1557/2024, the order framing charges and Criminal Case No. 1557/2021 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mungeli, were quashed/set aside qua the petitioners

The Court did not grant the requested disciplinary or compensation reliefs, but left the petitioners at liberty to approach the appropriate forum for those remedies