Criminal proceedings must be quashed where allegations lack the essential ingredients of the invoked offences.

The petitioner, M/s. Ananya College of Nursing, challenged criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 20318 of 2026 pending before the III Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, for alleged offences under Sections 316, 318, 319, 336, 337, 338 and 125 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The respondent, who operated Sacred Oak Hospital, alleged that the petitioner had created a forged fee receipt and a fraudulent Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) showing an affiliation or tie-up between the nursing college and the hospital, and had uploaded those documents before the Karnataka Nursing Council.

After the police declined to register an FIR and issued an NCR describing the dispute as civil in nature, the respondent filed a private complaint under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”).

The Magistrate gave the petitioner an opportunity to file objections, recorded the complainant’s sworn statement, marked documents as Exs. C-1 to C-8, took cognizance of the alleged offences and directed registration of the calendar case.

Whether the allegations in the private complaint, even if accepted at face value, disclosed the essential ingredients of criminal breach of trust, cheating, cheating by personation, forgery and endangering life or personal safety under Sections 316, 318, 319, 336, 337, 338 and 125 of the BNS?

Whether the Magistrate’s order taking cognizance, based substantially on blank or illegible documents and without adequate application of mind, warranted interference under Section 528 of the BNSS?

Whether continuation of the prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process of law where the dispute was essentially civil or commercial and allegedly motivated by professional rivalry?

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

Section 316 of the BNS requires entrustment of property or dominion over property followed by dishonest misappropriation, conversion, use or disposal; Section 318 requires deception coupled with fraudulent or dishonest inducement and resulting or likely harm; Section 319 requires cheating by personation; Sections 336–338 require the making of a false document or electronic record with the prescribed fraudulent or dishonest intent, with Sections 337 and 338 covering aggravated forms of forgery; and Section 125 requires a rash or negligent act endangering human life or personal safety.

The Court relied on Deepak Gaba v. State of Uttar Pradesh , (2023) 3 SCC 423, for the principle that criminal process must not be issued mechanically and that courts must distinguish civil wrongs from criminal offences.

Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1950, for the rule that a false representation must be material and must induce the alleged victim to act, and that forgery requires material connecting the accused with the making of the false document.

Inder Chand Bagri v. Jagadish Prasad Bagri , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2529, regarding the distinct ingredients of cheating and criminal breach of trust and the impermissibility of using criminal proceedings for private vendetta.

State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, which permits quashing where the allegations do not constitute an offence, are inherently improbable, or are manifestly mala fide.

The Court found that the complaint did not allege any entrustment of property by the respondent to the petitioner or any dishonest misappropriation, and therefore Section 316 of the BNS was not prima facie attracted.

The complaint also did not identify any deception or dishonest inducement exercised against the respondent at the inception of a transaction, which was necessary to constitute cheating under Section 318.

No allegation suggested that the petitioner impersonated another person, defeating the invocation of Section 319.

As to forgery, the Court observed that the petitioner could not obtain any statutory advantage from an alleged MOU with Sacred Oak Hospital because the hospital admittedly had only 28 beds, whereas the relevant nursing-college requirement contemplated association with a 100-bedded hospital.

The petitioner had, in fact, produced MOUs with other hospitals having 100 or more beds.

Consequently, the Court considered it inherently improbable that the petitioner would fabricate an MOU that could confer no regulatory or practical benefit.

The complaint also lacked adequate material demonstrating that the petitioner had made the alleged forged documents or acted with the requisite fraudulent intent.

The allegation under Section 125 of the BNS was likewise unsupported by any specific rash or negligent act endangering life or personal safety.

The Court further held that the Magistrate’s cognizance order was inadequate because the documents relied upon were blank or illegible and the order merely stated, without meaningful analysis, that a prima facie case existed.

Since the defect was not merely formal but arose from the complaint’s failure to disclose any offence, remand for a fresh cognizance order would serve no lawful purpose.

The Court consequently treated the prosecution as an abuse of process and as an attempt to give a criminal colour to an essentially civil or professional dispute.

It further held that the Magistrate’s order taking cognizance was legally unsustainable because it was based on inadequate application of mind and illegible material.

Accordingly, the proceedings in C.C. No. 20318 of 2026, arising out of P.C.R. No. 8310 of 2025 and pending before the III Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, were quashed under Section 528 of the BNSS.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the Section 528 proceedings and would not bind or influence any other forum.