Criminal proceedings based on a retaliatory tenancy complaint lacking offence ingredients are liable to be quashed.

Respondent No. 2, a tenant operating a saloon in premises associated with the petitioner’s family, alleged that the petitioner trespassed into the saloon on 1 October 2018, outraged her modesty and damaged property.

She lodged a complaint on 26 October 2018, leading to registration of a case and, after investigation, a charge sheet for offences under Sections 354A, 427 and 506 of the IPC.

The Magistrate took cognizance and issued process.

The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., arguing, among other things, that the complaint followed a landlord–tenant dispute, was delayed, and lacked specific allegations.

Respondent No. 2’s civil suit for permanent injunction was dismissed, while the petitioner’s family’s counterclaim for eviction was decreed.

1. Whether the complaint and accompanying material disclosed the ingredients of the alleged offences under Sections 354A, 427 and 506 of the IPC against the petitioner

2. Whether, in light of the circumstances surrounding the landlord–tenant dispute, continuing the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process warranting relief under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. empowers the High Court to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

Under the categories identified in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, proceedings may be quashed where the allegations, even accepted in full, do not constitute an offence, or where they are manifestly mala fide and instituted to wreak vengeance.

The Court also relied on Mohammed Ali v. State of U.P., (2023) 15 SCC 488, concerning careful scrutiny of the surrounding circumstances in cases alleging vexatious proceedings, and on the principles in State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy, (2004) 6 SCC 522, and R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, regarding the permissible scope of quashing proceedings.

In assessing Section 354A of the IPC, the Court considered whether the complaint alleged the requisite conduct and a positive act by the petitioner.

The Court noted that the complaint was lodged 25 days after the alleged incident and that, on its reading, it contained no allegation that the petitioner had outraged respondent No. 2’s modesty or otherwise committed a positive act sufficient to attract Section 354A.

It considered these deficiencies alongside the parties’ landlord–tenant dispute, the related civil proceedings and their outcome.

The Court inferred that the complaint had been lodged in retaliation for the petitioner’s father’s insistence that respondent No. 2 vacate the premises and clear rent arrears.

Applying the Bhajan Lal categories and the cited quashing principles, it concluded that the allegations did not constitute the offences alleged and that continuation of the prosecution would be an abuse of process.