Criminal proceedings are an abuse of process where officials followed a superior’s order and allegations lack evidentiary support.

The petitioners, a Village Accountant and a Sheristedar, removed an endorsement from the Record of Rights for lands in Chikkabettahalli stating that the lands belonged to the Government and could not be alienated.

They did so pursuant to a Deputy Commissioner’s order dated 3 June 2019, which followed this Court’s directions in earlier writ petitions and found that the entry lacked supporting material.

The fourth respondent complained that the petitioners had acted negligently and misused their official positions for extraneous consideration.

An FIR was registered as Crime No. 50/2020 by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, later represented by the Lokayukta Police.

The petitioners sought to quash the FIR and the related sanction orders.

Whether the FIR alleging dereliction of duty and misuse of official position disclosed a basis to continue criminal proceedings against the petitioners, given that they acted pursuant to the Deputy Commissioner’s order.

Whether continuation of the criminal proceedings amounted to an abuse of process warranting the High Court’s intervention under its inherent jurisdiction.

The petition invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Court applied the principle that the High Court may use its inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings where their continuation would amount to an abuse of process.

The judgment identifies no particular precedent or distinct statutory test under the Prevention of Corruption Act as the basis of its decision.

The Court found that the Deputy Commissioner had directed the necessary action after determining that the Government-ownership and non-alienation endorsement was unsupported by the relevant mutation proceedings.

The petitioners, in their official roles, had acted in compliance with that direction; the Court therefore found no dereliction, disobedience or negligence in removing the endorsement.

The complaint did not identify who benefited from the removal, and the record contained no other material supporting the allegation of extraneous consideration.

In those circumstances, the Court concluded that continuing the criminal proceedings would constitute an abuse of process.

Although the petition also sought to quash the sanction orders, the operative order expressly quashed the FIR and did not separately specify relief concerning those orders.