Criminal proceedings quashed where uncontroverted materials disclose no prima facie role in alleged offences.

The de facto complainant alleged that Budhaditya Chattopadhyay and his wife, Soumi Chattopadhyay, represented themselves as consultants and experts capable of establishing a medical college and hospital. Acting on their representations, the complainant’s company entrusted them with the project and made payments towards its execution. Subsequently, the complainant discovered that the project had progressed unsatisfactorily and that certain documents supplied by the accused were allegedly forged and fabricated. The principal accused allegedly agreed to refund the money and issued cheques which were dishonoured

A criminal proceeding was initiated in connection with Jagacha Police Station Case No. 307 of 2012, subsequently registered as Dasnagar Police Station Case No. 95 of 2013, under Sections 420, 406, 477, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and numbered as G.R. Case No. 4693 of 2013

The petitioner, Vijay Prashad @ Vijay Pratap Prasad, was the caretaker of “Himalaya Plaza”, where the principal accused had rented office premises. He contended that he was neither named in the FIR nor in the application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and had no connection with the alleged transactions. He was allegedly arrested merely because he accompanied the police from the building to the police station

The Court examined the case diary, documents on record and the order granting bail. The bail court had recorded that no specific allegation of cheating was made against the petitioner and that the acts complained of were committed by the FIR-named accused

1. Whether the criminal proceeding under Sections 420, 406, 477, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC disclosed any prima facie case against the petitioner, who was neither named in the FIR nor alleged to have participated in the principal accused’s transactions?

2. Whether continuation of the proceeding against the petitioner amounted to an abuse of the process of court warranting exercise of the High Court’s quashing jurisdiction?

The Court applied the principles governing quashing of criminal proceedings under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court, as illustrated in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335.

In particular, proceedings may be quashed where the allegations, even if accepted at face value, do not prima facie constitute an offence against the accused; where the uncontroverted allegations and collected materials do not disclose the commission of an offence; or where continuation of the proceeding would amount to abuse of the process of court

The Court also applied the requirement that criminal liability must be supported by specific allegations and prima facie material connecting the accused with the alleged offences

The Court found that the allegations concerning cheating, breach of trust, forged documents and dishonoured cheques were directed against Budhaditya Chattopadhyay and Soumi Chattopadhyay, who were the persons conducting the relevant transactions. The petitioner was merely the caretaker of the premises occupied by them and was not a party to their tenancy agreement or business dealings

He was neither named in the Section 156(3) application nor in the FIR, and the bail order itself recorded that no specific allegation of cheating or other substantive involvement was attributable to him

Since the materials did not disclose any act, omission, dishonest intention, conspiracy or participation by the petitioner, the essential prima facie foundation for the alleged offences was absent. The case therefore fell within the categories identified in Bhajan Lal, particularly cases where the allegations and collected materials do not make out an offence against the accused

All connected applications were disposed of, any interim order was vacated, and the judgment was directed to be communicated to the trial court for compliance