Criminal proceedings must be quashed where completed investigation finds no material connecting the accused to alleged offences.

The petitioner sought quashing of FIR/Case Crime No. 100 of 2018, registered at Police Station Rajpur, Dehradun, under Sections 386, 388 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”).

The FIR was lodged by a reporter of Samachar Plus, who alleged that the channel’s CEO had assigned him to conduct a sting operation on the then Chief Minister.

The informant stated that the CEO had told him that the petitioner could assist in securing an appointment with the Chief Minister.

After the informant failed to conduct the sting operation, the CEO and another person allegedly threatened him with professional ruin and death.

The investigation culminated in a charge-sheet against the CEO and Rahul Bhatia on 25 March 2019, but the petitioner was neither charge-sheeted nor found to be connected with any incriminating material.

The State confirmed that ten Investigating Officers had been changed during the investigation and fairly conceded that no incriminating material had been found against the petitioner.

The Court applied Sections 386 and 388 IPC, which require, respectively, extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt and extortion by threatening an accusation of a serious offence; a mere reference to a person’s name, without allegations of threat, extortion, fear of injury or participation in the conspiracy, does not satisfy their ingredients.

Section 120-B IPC requires material indicating an agreement or participation in a criminal conspiracy; no such material was found against the petitioner.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, consistently with the principles governing inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of the process of law, where the allegations do not disclose an offence or continuation of proceedings lacks a prima facie evidentiary basis.

It further relied on Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu alias R.L. Chongthu v. State of Bihar, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2511, for the principle that unjustifiably prolonged investigation or criminal proceedings may violate the accused’s right to speedy trial under Article 21, particularly where the State cannot justify the delay.

The FIR attributed to the petitioner only the alleged ability to assist the informant in securing an appointment with the then Chief Minister.

It did not allege that the petitioner threatened the informant, demanded money, put him in fear of injury, extorted him, or agreed with the other accused to commit the alleged offences.

Since the investigation had concluded and the State had filed a charge-sheet against two other persons while conceding that no incriminating material existed against the petitioner, there was no prima facie basis for continuing the prosecution merely because his name appeared in the FIR.

The FIR dated from 2018, and the charge-sheet had been filed on 25 March 2019; continuing the proceedings thereafter would subject the petitioner to indefinite criminal uncertainty and harassment, contrary to the fairness principles under Article 21.

The Court therefore held that the case fell within the category in which constitutional jurisdiction may be exercised to prevent abuse of process.

It held that the FIR did not disclose any specific overt act or prima facie material connecting him with offences under Sections 386, 388 or 120-B IPC, and that continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

The writ petition was allowed, and FIR/Case Crime No. 100 of 2018, along with all consequential proceedings, was quashed qua the petitioner.