Cognizance was quashed where civil-dispute allegations disclosed no offence against the petitioner.

The complainant alleged that he advanced ₹7.30 lakhs to the petitioner’s deceased elder brother and other accused persons in connection with a land transaction, against an undertaking to repay the amount or execute a sale deed.

Upon non-payment, a cheque allegedly issued by the deceased brother was dishonoured.

The complainant further alleged that, on 15 April 2016, the petitioner pointed a pistol at him, while co-accused persons allegedly snatched his chain and watch.

The complaint was referred for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, resulting in registration of Sasaram (Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 672 of 2016.

After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed under Sections 341, 323, 382, 406, 420 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance on 3 April 2018.

The petitioner sought quashing of the cognizance order under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction.

He contended that the dispute was essentially civil, that the money transaction was not with him, and that the allegations against him were limited to allegedly touching the complainant with a firearm without any specific threat, firing, or other overt act.

The complainant’s counsel conceded that the money transaction was not with the petitioner.

1. Whether the allegations and materials collected during investigation prima facie disclosed the commission of offences under Sections 341, 323, 382, 406, 420 and 504 IPC against the petitioner?

2. Whether continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner constituted an abuse of process where the underlying money dispute was civil in nature and the petitioner had no role in the underlying transaction?

3. Whether the case fell within the categories identified in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings?

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of the process of court and secure the ends of justice.

It relied on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, particularly categories (3) and (7) of paragraph 102: quashing is permissible where the uncontroverted allegations and evidence do not disclose the commission of an offence against the accused, and where the criminal proceeding is manifestly mala fide or instituted with an ulterior motive.

The Court also considered the allegations under Sections 341, 323, 382, 406, 420 and 504 IPC, while recognising that the existence of a civil remedy or pending civil litigation may be relevant where the criminal prosecution is being used to pursue a predominantly civil dispute and no specific criminal role is made out against the accused.

The Court found that the ₹7.30 lakh transaction was between the complainant and the petitioner’s deceased elder brother and other co-accused persons, not the petitioner; this was also fairly conceded by the complainant’s counsel.

The petitioner was implicated primarily on the allegation that he pointed a firearm at the complainant, but the Court noted the absence of any specific allegation of firing, threat, or other distinct overt act sufficient to connect him with the alleged offences.

Since a money suit concerning recovery of the amount was already pending, the Court treated the dispute as predominantly civil in character.

Applying categories (3) and (7) of Bhajan Lal, it concluded that the materials did not make out a sufficient criminal case against the petitioner and that his implication appeared to have been motivated by an oblique or ulterior purpose.

It accordingly set aside and quashed the cognizance order dated 3 April 2018 in Sasaram (Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 672 of 2016, insofar as it related to the petitioner.

The petition was allowed, and the judgment was directed to be communicated to the trial court along with the record, if any.