Criminal proceedings quashed where allegations failed to establish hurt, provocative insult, or alarm.

The petitioners, officers of NTPC, invoked Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of the entire criminal proceedings in Complaint Case No. 1834 of 2024 and the order dated 13 November 2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hazaribagh.

The Magistrate had found a prima facie case under Sections 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners.

The complainant alleged that NTPC had engaged him to provide computer training to persons selected by NTPC, but the petitioners neither made payment nor allotted work in accordance with the agreement.

He further alleged that, on 25 May 2024, the petitioners visited his residence, assaulted him, abused and threatened him with implication in a criminal case, and warned that he would be sent to jail if he again visited the NTPC office.

During the hearing, the complainant stated that he intended to obtain employment with NTPC.

The two petitions were heard together because they involved the same complaint and identical relief.

1. Whether the allegations in the complaint disclosed the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 323 IPC, particularly voluntary causing of bodily pain, disease or infirmity?

2. Whether the allegations satisfied the requirements of Section 504 IPC, including intentional insult of such a nature as was likely to provoke breach of public peace or commission of another offence?

3. Whether the alleged threats constituted criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC by being intended to cause alarm to the complainant?

4. Whether continuation of the criminal proceedings amounted to an abuse of the process of law warranting exercise of the High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS?

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to determine whether continuation of the prosecution would amount to abuse of process.

For Section 323 IPC, the Court applied the rule that the accused must have voluntarily caused bodily pain, disease or infirmity to the victim, relying on Deepmala v. State of Jharkhand, which referred to Abhishek Saxena v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 INSC 1088.

For Section 504 IPC, the Court relied on Vikram Johar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2019) 14 SCC 207, and the principles in Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 14 SCC 44, holding that the insult must be intentional and of such magnitude as to provoke breach of public peace or commission of another offence.

For Section 506 IPC, the Court applied the rule that the threat must involve injury to the person, reputation or property and must be intended to cause alarm or compel the victim to act or refrain from acting.

The Court held that, even if the complaint allegations were accepted in their entirety, they did not establish the ingredients of the alleged offences.

Regarding Section 323 IPC, the Court found no specific allegation that the petitioners caused bodily pain, disease or infirmity, and therefore concluded that the offence was not made out.

Regarding Section 504 IPC, the complaint did not allege that the alleged abuse or insult was of a nature likely to provoke breach of public peace or commission of another offence.

Regarding Section 506 IPC, the Court found no allegation demonstrating that the threats were intended to cause alarm in the complainant’s mind.

The Court also considered the complainant’s statement that he sought employment with NTPC and concluded that the proceedings appeared to have been instituted to pressure the petitioners to facilitate his employment, thereby rendering continuation of the prosecution an abuse of process.

It held that the essential ingredients of Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC were not disclosed even on accepting the complaint allegations as true.

Consequently, continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

The Court quashed and set aside the entire criminal proceedings in Complaint Case No. 1834 of 2024, including the order dated 13 November 2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hazaribagh, insofar as the named petitioners were concerned.

Both criminal miscellaneous petitions were accordingly allowed.