Criminal proceedings based on delayed, omnibus allegations were quashed as an abuse of process.

The petitioners, who were travelling in a car involved in a collision with a lorry on 10 July 2025, allegedly quarrelled with the lorry driver, obstructed traffic by protesting on the road, and obstructed police officers performing their duties.

The complaint further alleged that one of them threw a stone at the lorry’s windshield, causing damage.

The petitioners had earlier challenged the FIR; that petition was disposed of with liberty to challenge any charge sheet filed.

After investigation, a charge sheet was filed for offences under Sections 189(2), 132, 126(2), 324(4) and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and the petitioners sought to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 3601/2025.

The Court noted that a separate case had been registered on the first petitioner’s complaint against the lorry driver, and that the case against the petitioners was registered two days after the incident.

The petition invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to seek quashing of the proceedings.

The Court applied the principle that criminal proceedings may be quashed where, in the circumstances of the case, their continuation amounts to an abuse of the process of law.

The charge sheet alleged offences under Sections 189(2), 132, 126(2), 324(4) and 190 of the BNS.

No precedent was cited.

The Court considered the two-day interval between the incident and registration of the case, the fact that no complaint had been lodged by the lorry driver alleging damage to his vehicle, and the existence of a separate case against the lorry driver arising from the collision.

It also noted that the petitioners were members of the same family travelling in the car and that the allegations against them were omnibus.

Taken together, these circumstances led the Court to conclude that continuing the prosecution would amount to an abuse of process.