Criminal proceedings were quashed as a malicious counterblast arising from a land-possession dispute.

The petitioners challenged the order dated 20 June 2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Siwan, in Complaint Case No. 2378 of 2013, whereby processes were issued for alleged offences under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 354A of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”).

The complainant alleged that, during a land and possession dispute, the petitioners forcibly entered his property, damaged it, assaulted him and his family members, removed gold ornaments from his wife and daughter, and that one accused attempted to molest his wife.

The petitioners contended that the complaint was a counter-blast to an earlier complaint filed by petitioner No. 1 against the complainant’s family in Complaint Case No. 2361 of 2013.

They also relied upon Nautan P.S. Case No. 142 of 2013, lodged by the complainant concerning the same occurrence, which did not contain any allegation of molestation or outraging the modesty of a woman.

Whether the allegations and materials on record disclosed the essential ingredients of an offence under Section 354A IPC so as to justify issuance of process against the petitioners?

Whether continuation of the complaint proceeding, in the circumstances of the prior complaint, the FIR concerning the same occurrence, and the absence of supporting medical or other evidence, would constitute an abuse of the process of court warranting exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC?

Whether the Magistrate’s order issuing process under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 354A IPC suffered from non-application of judicial mind?

Section 354A IPC requires proof of specified forms of sexual harassment, including unwelcome physical contact and explicit sexual overtures, a demand or request for sexual favours, showing pornography against a woman’s will, or sexually coloured remarks.

The Court also 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.

It relied principally on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335, and also referred to State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy, (1977) 2 SCC 699; State of Andhra Pradesh v. Aravapally Venkanna, (2009) 13 SCC 443; Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401; Sachin Garg v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 82; and Vishal Noble Singh v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1680, for the principles governing quashing of criminal proceedings.

The governing rule was that criminal proceedings may be quashed where the allegations, taken in context, do not constitute the alleged offence or where the prosecution is manifestly attended with mala fides and continuation would amount to abuse of process.

The Court found that the complaint contained allegations of molestation against the petitioners, but did not disclose facts satisfying any of the statutory categories of sexual harassment under Section 354A IPC.

The complainant’s wife, examined as an inquiry witness and being the person allegedly victimised, did not state that anyone had attempted to outrage her modesty or sexually harass her.

Further, the FIR lodged by the complainant regarding the same occurrence contained no allegation concerning molestation or outraging the modesty of any woman.

The Court also noted that no injury report or medical record supported the allegations that the complainant and his family members had sustained injuries.

The earlier complaint filed by petitioner No. 1, followed by the complainant’s FIR and the present complaint, demonstrated that the parties were engaged in a continuing land and possession dispute and were litigating against each other.

In that context, the present complaint appeared to be a counter-blast lodged with an ulterior motive.

The Magistrate’s order was therefore treated as reflecting non-application of judicial mind, particularly in relation to Section 354A IPC, and continuation of the prosecution was held to be an abuse of process.

Exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, the Court quashed and set aside the order dated 20 June 2015 and the criminal proceedings in Complaint Case No. 2378 of 2013 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 354A IPC, insofar as the petitioners were concerned.

The application was allowed, pending interlocutory applications were disposed of, and no order as to costs was made.