Criminal proceedings may be quashed where delayed prosecution is manifestly mala fide and vengeance-driven.

The petitioner, Ram Narayan Yadav, challenged the order dated 03.11.2018 by which the A.C.J.M., 1st Jhanjharpur, took cognizance of offences under Sections 420, 409 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code in Lakhnaur (R.S.O.P.) P.S. Case No. 171 of 2016.

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner had secured appointment as an Assistant Teacher in the 1996 Primary Teacher Competitive Examination by impersonation, served from 01.05.2000 to 06.05.2010, and received government salary during that period.

On the basis of the District Programme Officer’s letter dated 26.09.2016, the FIR was registered on 27.09.2016.

Following investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted and cognizance was taken against the petitioner.

The petitioner contended that the FIR was lodged after approximately 17 years due to personal and political vendetta, that the investigation did not establish who had impersonated him, and that the cognizance order was non-speaking and unsupported by sufficient material.

Whether the order dated 03.11.2018 taking cognizance under Sections 420, 409 and 120-B IPC was liable to be quashed in exercise of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC?

Whether the criminal proceeding was manifestly attended with mala fide or instituted with an ulterior motive so as to fall within the illustrative categories identified in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal?

Whether the allegations and materials collected during investigation disclosed the prima facie ingredients of the offences under Sections 420, 409 and 120-B IPC against the petitioner?

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which may be invoked to prevent abuse of the process of court or otherwise secure the ends of justice.

The alleged offences were under Sections 420, 409 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, concerning cheating, criminal breach of trust by a public servant, and criminal conspiracy respectively.

The Court relied principally on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, particularly the categories permitting quashing where the allegations, even if accepted in full, do not constitute an offence; where the materials do not disclose a prima facie case; where the allegations are inherently improbable; or where the proceeding is manifestly mala fide and instituted with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance.

Applying the Bhajan Lal principles, the Court found that the FIR had been lodged approximately 17 years after the alleged impersonation and after the petitioner had resigned from service and entered politics.

The timing of the prosecution, coupled with the petitioner’s allegation of hostility between him and the informant and the alleged political circumstances, led the Court to conclude that the proceeding was motivated by oblique and ulterior considerations rather than a bona fide criminal grievance.

The Court also noted the absence of material identifying the person who allegedly impersonated the petitioner during the examination and considered the cognizance order to be non-speaking and unsupported by cogent material.

Consequently, the proceeding was held to fall within the mala fide and abuse-of-process principles recognised in Bhajan Lal.

Exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, it set aside and quashed the cognizance order under Sections 420, 409 and 120-B IPC, along with all consequential proceedings, insofar as they concerned the petitioner.

The petition was accordingly allowed, and the judgment was directed to be transmitted to the trial court with the records, if any.