### Criminal Prosecution for Non-Payment of Wages Constitutes Abuse of Process and Malicious Prosecution

The petitioner, a retired college teacher and former In-charge Principal of R.D.S. College, Katihar (tenure from 01.08.2016 to 15.07.2018), sought quashing of a cognizance order dated 12.10.2018.

The complainant (Opposite Party No. 2), a 4th-grade contract employee, alleged non-payment of wages totaling Rs. 50,000 for the period August 2016 to March 2018.

The petitioner contended that the complainant’s appointment was unlawful (lacking advertisement/due process) and that previous payments were flagged as unauthorized in an Audit Report for lacking University approval.

The trial court took cognizance under Sections 406 (Criminal Breach of Trust) and 504 (Intentional Insult) of the IPC.

Whether the allegations in the complaint prima facie constitute the offences of criminal breach of trust or intentional insult under the IPC.

Whether the continuation of criminal proceedings for a grievance regarding non-payment of wages by an institution constitutes an abuse of the process of law.

The Court primarily relied on the landmark principles established in *State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors. (AIR 1992 SC 604)*, which provides guidelines for quashing FIRs/complaints where allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose a cognizable offence or are filed with malicious intent.

It further considered the standard for summoning an accused as articulated in *Sunil Bharti Mittal vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2015) 4 SCC 609*, emphasizing that summons should not be issued in a mechanical manner.

The Court observed that the core of the dispute was a claim for unpaid wages against an educational institution.

The Court reasoned that the petitioner, as an In-charge Principal, could not be held personally liable for criminal offences (Sections 406 and 504 IPC) simply because the college had not paid the complainant, especially when the validity of the appointment was in question due to lack of statutory approval under the Bihar Universities Act, 1976.

The Court found that the trial court acted mechanically, as the enquiry failed to produce material justifying the issuance of summons.

Since the dispute was essentially civil/administrative in nature, the criminal complaint was deemed a frivolous and malicious attempt to misuse the judicial system.

The Court held that the complaint was a "grave misuse of the process of the Court" and that no prima facie case was made out against the petitioner.

The prosecution was found to be malicious, and quashing was necessary to prevent the abuse of the process of law.