Criminal proceedings instituted for vengeance and lacking offence ingredients constitute abuse of process warranting quashing.

The petitioner, Kislay Kumar, was the Branch Manager of the Sursand Branch of the Sitamarhi Central Co-operative Bank.

Opposite Party No. 2, Ram Naresh Choudhary, filed a complaint alleging that the petitioner, the former Chairman of Dadhawari PACS and the Branch Manager had colluded to withdraw approximately ₹4.92/₹4.99 lakhs from the PACS bank account by forging his signature, thereby implicating him in a defalcation case.

The Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of offences under Sections 409, 406, 420, 120-B, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and issued process against the petitioner.

The petitioner challenged the order in revision, but the Sessions Judge dismissed the revision on 5 August 2016.

The petitioner contended that he had, in discharge of his official duties, lodged Sursand P.S. Case No. 27 of 2015 against the complainant and others concerning the alleged misappropriation.

During the complaint enquiry, the Bank reported that Account No. 7674 was the complainant’s personal account, whereas the PACS account was CCP Account No. 17, from which the disputed withdrawals had occurred.

The police had submitted a charge-sheet against the complainant and others in the earlier case, with the petitioner cited as a prosecution witness.

Whether the complaint and the materials accompanying it disclosed the ingredients of offences under Sections 409, 406, 420, 120-B, 467, 468 and 471 IPC against the petitioner?

Whether the complaint proceedings were manifestly malicious, vexatious and instituted with an ulterior motive to settle personal scores, thereby warranting exercise of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to quash them?

Whether the orders taking cognizance and dismissing the criminal revision were legally sustainable?

The Court applied the principles governing quashing of criminal proceedings in exercise of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.

It relied on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, particularly the principle that proceedings manifestly attended with mala fide or instituted maliciously with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance may be quashed.

Under Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd., (2006) 6 SCC 738, criminal proceedings may be quashed where they constitute an abuse of process, have been initiated with mala fides or malice, or where the allegations are absurd or inherently improbable.

State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy, (1977) 2 SCC 699, recognises the High Court’s power to quash proceedings where continuation would amount to abuse of process or where the ends of justice require intervention.

The Court also relied on Mohd. Wajid v. State of U.P., (2023) 20 SCC 219, which requires the Court, in cases alleging frivolous or vexatious prosecution, to examine the complaint together with the surrounding circumstances and read between the lines.

The alleged offences were under Sections 409, 406, 420, 120-B, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.

The Court found that the complaint did not attribute any specific overt act to the petitioner demonstrating breach of trust, misappropriation, forgery, use of forged documents or conspiracy.

The complaint incorrectly described Account No. 7674 as the PACS account, although the Bank’s report showed that it was the complainant’s personal account; the actual PACS account was CCP Account No. 17, from which the disputed withdrawals had been made.

The Court further considered the surrounding circumstances: the petitioner had lodged the earlier FIR against the complainant approximately nine months before the complaint, the complainant had been arrested and charge-sheeted in that case, and the petitioner was a charge-sheet witness.

Applying the principles in Bhajan Lal, Indian Oil Corporation, L. Muniswamy and Mohd. Wajid, the Court held that these circumstances disclosed a malicious prosecution intended to wreak vengeance and that continuation of the case would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

Accordingly, it quashed and set aside the cognizance order dated 18 February 2016 and the revisional order dated 5 August 2016, and quashed the entire criminal proceeding arising from Complaint Case No. C-1/516/2015 insofar as it concerned the petitioner.

The application was allowed, with no order as to costs.