Criminal process based on suppressed material facts and an unreasoned summoning order is unsustainable.

The complainant and another person were partners in M/s. Ashutosh Developers.

The petitioner alleged that he invested ₹4.11 crore in the firm, including ₹3.45 crore paid to landowners and ₹66 lakh shared with the existing partners.

A deed dated 3 September 2012 recorded the complainant’s retirement from the firm.

The complainant alleged that he signed the deed without understanding its contents and that his signature on Form E, filed with the Registrar of Firms, was forged.

The Magistrate issued process against the petitioner under Sections 418, 420, 465, 466 and 468 IPC; the petitioner’s criminal revision was dismissed.

The petitioner challenged the process order and revisional order under Article 227 of the Constitution and Section 482 CrPC.

Whether the process order, which stated that the complainant was heard and the documents considered but gave no reasons demonstrating judicial application of mind, was sustainable.

Whether the complainant’s alleged suppression of material facts concerning the investment, partnership reconstitution, civil proceedings and related transactions warranted quashing the criminal proceedings as an abuse of process.

Article 227 of the Constitution and Section 482 CrPC empower the High Court to intervene to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

Under Sections 200 and 204 CrPC, the Magistrate must consider the complaint, supporting material and examination of the complainant to determine whether sufficient grounds exist to proceed; an order issuing process need not contain exhaustive reasons, but must reflect application of judicial mind.

Relying on Rekha Sharad Ushir v. Saptashrungi Mahila Nagari Sahkari Patsansta Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 641, and the principle in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, the Court reiterated that material suppression or falsehood bearing on the decision-making process may justify rejecting a litigant’s claim and prevent misuse of court process.

The Court also referred to Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749, on the serious consequences of setting criminal law in motion.

The Court found that the complainant’s account omitted material circumstances, including the petitioner’s ₹4.11 crore investment, the 2010 deed of reconstitution, the civil suit and consent terms involving payment to the landowners, and the landowners’ subsequent power of attorney acknowledging receipt of the money.

It also considered the complainant’s admitted signature on the 2012 deed, his asserted lack of understanding of English, the absence of a grievance from the other partner, and the related property dealings and litigation.

Against this background, the Magistrate’s process order merely stated that the complainant had been heard and documents considered, without showing how the statutory threshold was met; the revisional court, in the High Court’s view, did not address the material omissions.

The Court concluded that the prosecution had arisen from incomplete facts and that its continuation would amount to abuse of process.

It discharged the petitioner from the criminal proceedings.