Criminal proceedings may be quashed where an accused is later named without any specific overt act.

On a complaint concerning incidents dated 20 May 2019, Jagaddal Police Station Case No. 475 of 2019 was registered under Sections 435, 147, 148, 149, 447, 448, 341, 379, 427 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The allegations were that a group of persons forcibly entered houses, damaged household articles, committed theft and looted money, and that several houses were damaged or set on fire.

The de facto complainant specifically named 22 persons in the written complaint, but the petitioner, Monu Prasad Tanti, was not named in the FIR. His name appeared for the first time in the charge-sheet on the basis of statements made by witnesses, who collectively named approximately 30 persons. No specific overt act was attributed to the petitioner.

The petitioner sought quashing of the criminal proceeding and the charge-sheet pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore, in GR Case No. 2658 of 2019.

Whether the criminal proceeding and charge-sheet could be quashed against the petitioner where he was not named in the FIR, his name emerged only during investigation, and no specific overt act was attributed to him.

Whether continuation of the proceeding against the petitioner fell within the categories warranting exercise of the High Court’s quashing jurisdiction under the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal.

The Court applied the principles governing quashing of criminal proceedings under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction, particularly the categories identified by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 / AIR 1992 SC 604.

Proceedings may be quashed where the allegations and materials collected, even if accepted at face value, do not disclose the commission of an offence or make out a case against the accused; where the allegations are inherently improbable; or where continuation of the proceeding would otherwise amount to abuse of process or defeat the ends of justice.

The Court also noted the petitioner’s reliance on Salib @ Shalu @ Salim v. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 947, and Haji Iqbal @ Bala through S.P.O.A. v. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 948.

The Court found that the de facto complainant had specifically named 22 persons in the original complaint, whereas the petitioner was not among them. His name surfaced only during the investigation through witness statements, which named around 30 persons generally.

The materials did not attribute any specific overt act to the petitioner.

Applying the Bhajan Lal categories, the Court concluded that the uncontroverted allegations and materials collected did not sufficiently disclose a case against the petitioner individually.

Consequently, continuation of the proceeding against him would not serve the interests of justice and was covered by the principles permitting quashing of proceedings to prevent abuse of process.

The proceedings arising from Jagaddal Police Station Case No. 475 of 2019, including the charge-sheet in GR Case No. 2658 of 2019, were quashed in respect of Monu Prasad Tanti only.

All connected applications were disposed of, any interim order was vacated, and a copy of the judgment was directed to be sent to the trial court for necessary compliance.