Court Must Scrutinize Over-Implication in FIRs Cloaked as Specific Overt Acts to Avoid Abuse of Process

The Petitioner No. 2 (Sanjay Kumar Ranjan) sought the quashing of a cognizance order dated 06.03.2019 passed by the ACJM-IX, Gaya, arising from Magadh University P.S. Case No. 106/2018.

The informant, Sudhir Yadav, alleged that due to a land dispute, seven people—including the Petitioner—assaulted him. The FIR contained graphic details, specifically alleging that the Petitioner held both hands of the informant while another accused fired a shot at his private parts, which instead hit his left rib-cage.

Medical reports, however, showed a lacerated wound on the abdomen that did not clearly suggest a firearm injury.

Applications for Petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 were previously withdrawn.

The court relied on the established principles for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC as articulated in State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy (1977), State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), and Md. Salib v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023).

These cases establish that the High Court owes a duty to look "between the lines" in FIRs that appear manifestly frivolous, vexatious, or instituted with ulterior motives for wreaking vengeance.

The court also took judicial notice of the tendency to over-implicate "members of the mob" in land and matrimonial disputes.

The Court observed that the FIR reached the level of "graphic detailing" and "novel-like" storytelling, which strongly indicated over-implication.

It noted the physical impossibility of the informant's version: if multiple people were surrounding and holding him at point-blank range while a shot was fired, those surrounding him would likely have been injured, yet only the informant suffered a minor laceration.

The Court found that in the context of an admitted land dispute, the informant "spread the net very wide" to implicate enemies with "useless and petty roles".

Following the mandate in Md. Salib, the Court looked beyond the prima facie averments to the surrounding circumstances, concluding that the proceedings were a sheer waste of public time and money as there was no reasonable likelihood of conviction.

The Court held that when an FIR is drafted with specific roles solely to ensure it meets the ingredients of an offence but is belied by physical facts and attending circumstances (like land disputes), it constitutes an abuse of process.