Criminal proceedings were quashed where omnibus allegations failed to establish essential offence ingredients.

The petitioner, affiliated with a political party, was named as one of twenty-five accused in a written complaint submitted by the sitting MLA of Sonarpur North Assembly Constituency during the 2021 election period.

The complaint alleged that certain persons were terrorising voters, threatening them with dangerous weapons, and using abusive language.

On the complaint, Narendrapur Police Station Case No. 442 of 2021 was registered under Sections 341, 504, 506 and 34 of the IPC.

Although two independent witnesses stated under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that Sandip Sinha and others had threatened voters, they did not specifically name the petitioner.

Following investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against all twenty-five accused, including the petitioner, who were shown as absconding.

The petitioner was subsequently granted bail by the learned A.C.J.M., Baruipur, on 15 January 2024 and sought quashing of G.R. Case No. 2845 of 2021 arising from the said police case.

He contended that the allegations were politically motivated, omnibus, and did not attribute any specific overt act to him.

The State fairly conceded that the investigation had not been properly conducted and that the complaint lacked specific averments against the petitioner.

1. Whether the allegations in the complaint and the materials collected during investigation disclosed the essential ingredients of offences under Sections 341, 504, 506 and 34 of the IPC against the petitioner.

2. Whether the criminal proceeding against the petitioner was liable to be quashed in exercise of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of the process of court and secure the ends of justice.

The Court considered Sections 341, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, which respectively concern wrongful restraint, intentional insult likely to provoke breach of peace, criminal intimidation, and acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

It applied the principle that criminal proceedings cannot be used as an instrument of harassment or political vendetta.

Relying on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, particularly paragraph 102.1, the Court held that where the allegations in the FIR, even if taken at face value, do not prima facie constitute an offence or make out a case against the accused, the High Court may quash the proceeding under its inherent jurisdiction to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of process.

The Court found that the complaint contained general and omnibus allegations against a group of political persons and did not identify any specific act committed by the petitioner.

The statements of the independent witnesses referred to Sandip Sinha and others but did not implicate the petitioner by name.

In light of the State’s concession that the investigation was defective and that the complaint lacked specific averments, the Court concluded that the materials did not establish the essential ingredients of wrongful restraint, intentional insult, criminal intimidation, or common intention against the petitioner.

Applying the Bhajan Lal principle, continuation of the proceeding was held to constitute an abuse of the process of court.

CRAN 2 of 2025 was disposed of accordingly; any interim order was vacated, with no order as to costs.