Criminal proceedings must be quashed where neither the FIR nor investigation implicates the accused.

On 26 October 2021, a police team proceeded to inspect alleged unauthorised construction sites in Mandarmoni pursuant to information received from the Additional Executive Officer, Purba Medinipur Zilla Parishad.

At several locations, including Star Inn Resort, construction activity was allegedly found ongoing without valid permissions. The prosecution alleged that persons present at the site abused and obstructed the police party and pelted stones, causing injuries to police personnel.

A suo motu complaint was lodged, resulting in Mandarmoni Coastal Police Station Case No. 71 of 2021 under Sections 186/188/353/379/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Following investigation, chargesheet No. 47 of 2023 dated 31 July 2023 was submitted against nine persons, including the present petitioners.

The petitioners sought quashing of the proceedings on the ground that they were not named in the FIR and that neither the chargesheet nor the witness statements disclosed any specific material or role against them.

The State, after producing the case diary, fairly conceded that no material or witness statement implicated the petitioners.

Whether the criminal proceedings and chargesheet under Sections 186/188/353/379/506/34 IPC could continue against the petitioners when the FIR, case diary, and witness statements disclosed no involvement or specific role attributable to them?

Whether the case fell within Categories (1) and (3) of the principles enumerated in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, warranting quashing of the proceedings to prevent abuse of the process of law?

The Court considered the offences alleged under Sections 186, 188, 353, 379, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which require prima facie material connecting the accused with the alleged criminal acts.

It applied the principles in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, particularly Category (1), where the allegations, even taken at face value, do not constitute an offence, and Category (3), where the uncontroverted allegations and collected evidence do not disclose the commission of an offence or make out a case against the accused.

Continuation of proceedings in the absence of any foundational material against the accused constitutes an abuse of the process of law.

The Court examined the FIR, chargesheet, case diary, and witness statements and found that the petitioners were neither implicated in the FIR nor connected with the alleged acts through any material collected during investigation.

Although their names appeared in the chargesheet, no specific role or incriminating circumstance was attributed to them, and the State acknowledged that their names did not appear even in the witness statements.

Consequently, no prima facie case under Sections 186/188/353/379/506/34 IPC was established.

Applying Categories (1) and (3) of Bhajan Lal, the Court held that the material, even if accepted at its highest, did not disclose any offence by the petitioners and that allowing the prosecution to continue would cause unwarranted prejudice and amount to abuse of process.

Any interim order was vacated, the case diary was directed to be returned to the State, and the order was directed to be communicated to the court below.