Counterblast complaints lacking the ingredients of alleged offences warrant quashing.

The petitioners sought to quash the charge sheet and proceedings in C.C. No. 50 of 2023, arising from a complaint that they had demanded repayment of alleged loans, abused and threatened the complainant and family members, and forcibly obtained signed blank cheques and personal and vehicle documents.

The police registered a case under Sections 147, 294(b), 384 and 506(2) of the IPC and filed a charge sheet.

The petitioners contended that the complaint was a counterblast to proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act concerning dishonoured cheques issued by the complainant and his brother; the State opposed quashing, relying on the allegations and investigation materials.

The Court noted that the cheques were issued on 2 and 4 February 2022, statutory notices were issued on 24 February 2022, and the present complaint was made on 3 April 2022.

Whether the complaint and materials collected during investigation disclosed a prima facie case for the offences alleged under Sections 147, 294(b), 384 and 506(2) of the IPC.

Whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed as an abuse of process, including on the ground that the complaint was a counterblast to the Section 138 proceedings.

The Court considered the alleged offences under Sections 147, 294(b), 384 and 506(2) of the IPC and applied the principle that criminal proceedings may be quashed where the allegations, taken at face value, do not constitute the alleged offences, the investigation materials do not disclose their basic ingredients, or continuation of the prosecution would amount to an abuse of process.

It invoked the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the proceedings, although the petition was filed under Section 528 of the BNSS.

No precedent was cited.

The Court treated the timing of the complaint—after the cheques were dishonoured and statutory notices issued—as supporting the petitioners’ contention that it was a counterblast to the Section 138 proceedings.

It concluded that the complaint and investigation materials did not sufficiently establish the ingredients of the alleged IPC offences and did not attribute a distinct role to each petitioner.

On that basis, it found that continuing the prosecution would constitute an abuse of process.

The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.