Cognizance quashed where miscarriage allegations lacked medical evidence and investigation found them false.

The informant alleged that co-accused Murtaza had repeatedly had sexual relations with her on a false promise of marriage and that, after she became pregnant, the petitioners—identified as Murtaza’s brother and father—administered medicine to her, causing a miscarriage.

The police submitted a charge-sheet against Murtaza but a final form exonerating the petitioners; the Magistrate nevertheless took cognizance against them.

The petitioners’ application for discharge under Section 227 CrPC was dismissed by the Sessions Judge on 9 March 2017. They sought quashing of that order before the High Court.

Whether the material on record was sufficient to proceed against the petitioners on the allegation that they administered medicine causing the informant’s miscarriage.

Whether the order refusing discharge should be quashed where the allegations against the petitioners had been found false during investigation and were unsupported by medical evidence.

Section 227 CrPC provides for discharge where the court, upon considering the record and hearing the parties, finds insufficient ground to proceed against the accused.

The petitioners relied on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, arguing that the case fell within categories warranting quashing; this was recorded as a submission, rather than expressly adopted or analysed as a separate rule by the Court.

The Court’s stated basis for relief was that the allegation against the petitioners appeared malicious and vexatious in the absence of medical evidence of miscarriage and in light of the investigation’s finding that the allegations were false.

The Court focused on the specific allegation against the petitioners—that they administered medicine resulting in miscarriage—and observed that, apart from oral allegations, there was no medical evidence indicating that a miscarriage had occurred.

It also took account of the fact that the allegations against the petitioners had been found false during investigation. On those circumstances, the Court considered the allegations malicious and vexatious and concluded that the order refusing discharge could not stand.

The judgment describes that order in the concluding paragraph as an order taking cognizance, although it earlier identifies the challenged order as the dismissal of the petitioners’ discharge application.