Cognizance against petitioners quashed for want of prima facie material supporting the charged IPC offences.

The informant alleged that her son was assaulted at a photocopy shop on suspicion of theft.

When the informant’s daughter reached the spot, she was allegedly abused by co-accused Abhay Kumar Srivastava and subsequently assaulted and abused by Abhay’s daughter and wife, the present petitioners.

A criminal case was registered under Sections 341, 342, 323, 504 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code.

The Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna took cognizance against the petitioners on 19 November 2016.

The petitioners challenged the cognizance order, contending that the allegations did not disclose the statutory ingredients of the alleged offences, that there was no injury report or allegation of confinement, and that the prosecution was malicious and mechanically investigated.

The State and the informant opposed the application, asserting that prima facie materials existed against the petitioners.

Whether the allegations and materials on record disclosed a prima facie case against the petitioners under Sections 341, 342, 323, 504 and 354 of the IPC so as to justify the order taking cognizance.

Whether the cognizance order dated 19 November 2016, insofar as it concerned the petitioners, was liable to be quashed on the ground that the prosecution was vexatious, malicious, or otherwise constituted an abuse of process.

Whether the criminal proceedings against co-accused Abhay Kumar Srivastava should also be interfered with.

The case involved Sections 341, 342, 323, 504 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code, concerning wrongful restraint, wrongful confinement, voluntarily causing hurt, intentional insult likely to provoke breach of peace, and assault or criminal force to a woman with intent to outrage her modesty, respectively.

The petitioners relied on the principles governing quashing of criminal proceedings laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, particularly Categories 1, 3 and 11, which concern allegations not disclosing an offence, materials failing to disclose a cognizable offence, and proceedings instituted with mala fide or malicious intent.

The High Court exercised its jurisdiction to determine whether continuation of the prosecution against the petitioners was justified on the allegations and circumstances appearing from the record.

The petitioners argued that the allegations did not establish the ingredients of the charged offences: there was no allegation of illegal confinement for Sections 341 and 342, no injury report supporting Section 323, and no allegation showing that the insult under Section 504 was likely to provoke a breach of public peace.

They also disputed the applicability of Section 354 and alleged that the accusations against them had been subsequently inserted and were motivated by personal vendetta.

Although the State and informant asserted that prima facie material existed, the High Court, after considering the nature of the allegations and the intervening facts and circumstances, found it appropriate to terminate the prosecution against the present petitioners.

The Court did not extend that relief to co-accused Abhay Kumar Srivastava, permitting the proceedings against him to continue.

The criminal proceedings against co-accused Abhay Kumar Srivastava were permitted to continue.

The application was accordingly allowed.