Criminal proceedings may be quashed as retaliatory where charge-sheet materials fail to substantiate the alleged offences.

Respondent No. 2, the petitioner’s mother-in-law, alleged that the petitioner forcibly entered her house by breaking open the door, abused and threatened her and her son.

The Magistrate referred the private complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.; police registered a case and filed a charge-sheet for offences under Sections 427, 448, 504 and 506 IPC, after which the Magistrate took cognizance.

The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings, contending that the complaint was retaliatory amid pending matrimonial proceedings and that the charge-sheet contained no material substantiating the alleged forcible entry.

Respondent No. 2 opposed the petition, maintaining that the allegations were supported by the investigation.

Whether the complaint and charge-sheet materials disclosed a sufficient basis to continue proceedings against the petitioner for the alleged offences.

Whether the proceedings were an abuse of process, allegedly instituted maliciously in the context of the parties’ matrimonial dispute.

The Court considered its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (the petition also referred to Section 528 BNSS) to quash criminal proceedings where continuation would amount to an abuse of process.

Applying the State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal categories, as set out in Mohammed Ali v. State of U.P., proceedings may be quashed where allegations do not prima facie make out an offence, are inherently improbable, or are manifestly mala fide and brought to wreak vengeance.

Relying also on State of Andhra Pradesh v. Golconda Linga Swamy and R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, the Court noted that it may examine the complaint and investigation materials to determine whether an offence is disclosed, while ordinarily refraining from assessing the reliability of evidence.

The Court found that the charge-sheet contained no material substantiating the central allegation that the petitioner broke open the door and forcibly entered the house; the alleged extra-marital relationship was also unsupported by material, and the allegations of entry and abuse were omnibus.

Considering the pending matrimonial proceedings and the petitioner’s complaint against her husband under Section 498-A IPC, the Court concluded that the mother-in-law’s complaint was a counterblast arising from the matrimonial dispute and was lodged out of vengeance.

In those circumstances, continuing the prosecution would constitute an abuse of process.

It directed that its observations should not affect the Family Court’s disposal of the pending matrimonial case.