Criminal proceedings quashed where the complainant abandoned prosecution and coercive process was never served.

The petitioners sought quashing of the order dated 19 March 1998 by which the learned SDJM, Sikrahana at Dhaka, took cognizance of offences under Sections 323 and 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code in Complaint Case No. 580 of 1996, subsequently numbered as Trial No. 2172 of 2018.

The complaint alleged that, on 8 December 1996, a political discussion at Dhaka Bus Stand led to the accused abusing and assaulting the complainant, tearing his clothes, and allegedly taking money from him.

The petitioners contended that the incident arose out of a minor altercation, that summons and subsequent warrants were never served upon them, and that the complainant stopped pursuing the case after recording his statement.

The trial-court record indicated that the complainant did not appear after recording his statement and that service of the bailable and non-bailable warrants upon the petitioners was not established.

By order dated 11 July 2018, the proceedings were dropped and the petitioners were declared permanent absconders by reference to an administrative letter of the High Court.

The complaint was filed in 1996 and was not supported by an affidavit.

Whether the order dated 19 March 1998 taking cognizance of offences under Sections 323 and 379/34 IPC, and the consequential criminal proceedings, were liable to be quashed under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction?

Whether the order dated 11 July 2018 declaring the petitioners permanent absconders could be sustained when service of summons and warrants was not established?

Whether continuation of the proceedings, arising from an alleged 1996 occurrence and unsupported by the complainant’s subsequent participation, would amount to an abuse of the process of court?

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to prevent abuse of the process of court and secure the ends of justice.

The alleged offences were under Sections 323 and 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Relying on Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749, the Court reiterated that an accused may approach the High Court for quashing even before or during trial where the complaint and supporting material do not disclose a sustainable case; the accused need not undergo the ordeal of a criminal trial merely because cognizance has been taken.

The Court also considered the procedural requirement of proper service of summons and warrants before adverse coercive or absconder-related consequences could follow.

The Court found that the complainant did not pursue the case after recording his statement and that the certified trial-court orders did not demonstrate service of either the bailable or non-bailable warrants upon the petitioners.

The proceedings originated from a 1996 occurrence and had continued for nearly three decades without meaningful prosecutorial progress.

The Court further noted that the complaint was not supported by an affidavit and that the complainant had ceased appearing before the trial court.

Applying the principle in Pepsi Foods that the High Court may intervene where continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause unjustified harassment or constitute abuse of process, the Court held that the cognizance order and the subsequent declaration of the petitioners as absconders could not be sustained.

The trial-court records were directed to be returned to the court concerned along with a copy of the judgment.