Criminal prosecution founded on vindictive motives constitutes abuse of process and warrants quashing.

The complainant, Sushma Sahay, an employee of Janani NGO, alleged that on 6 November 2014, she was called to the room of Donald Douglas, the organisation’s National Head, on the pretext of discussing her promotion and increment. She alleged that Douglas caught one of her hands, the petitioner Gunjan Kumar Lal caught the other, and both engaged in inappropriate physical conduct until her cries attracted the attention of a catering staff member and Kanti Devi.

The complaint alleged offences under Sections 506, 504, 323, 354, 406, 384, 376, 447 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The Judicial Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioner under Section 354 read with Section 34 IPC by order dated 12 March 2015.

The petitioner denied the allegations and contended that the complaint was motivated by personal vendetta. He submitted that the complainant had previously faced warnings concerning absenteeism and workplace conduct, was transferred and terminated on 17 November 2014, and that complaints had also been lodged against her for allegedly threatening the organisation’s Country Head.

He therefore sought quashing of the cognizance order and the criminal proceedings.

1. Whether the criminal proceedings and the order taking cognizance under Section 354/34 IPC were liable to be quashed as vexatious, malicious, and an abuse of the process of law.

2. Whether the allegations and surrounding circumstances disclosed that the complaint had been instituted with an ulterior motive to settle personal scores after the complainant’s termination and the institution of proceedings against her.

3. Whether the Magistrate had applied the requisite judicial mind before taking cognizance and proceeding against the petitioner.

The Court considered the alleged offences under Sections 354 and 34 IPC, concerning assault or criminal force to a woman with intent to outrage her modesty and acts done in furtherance of common intention.

In exercising its inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process, the Court relied on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, and Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P., (2023) 15 SCC 488, for the principle that criminal proceedings may be quashed where they are manifestly frivolous, vexatious, malicious, or instituted with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance.

It also relied on M/s Eicher Tractors Ltd. v. Harihar Singh, (2008) 16 SCC 763, regarding proceedings instituted to settle personal scores, and M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749, for the requirement that a Magistrate must apply judicial mind and must not issue process mechanically or without sufficient grounds.

The Court assessed the complaint in the context of the surrounding employment disputes. It noted that the complainant proceeded against the petitioner after allegations had allegedly been made against her, followed by her termination and the lodging of criminal proceedings against her at the police station.

Although the complaint contained allegations relating to Section 354 IPC, the Court considered the timing and background of the prosecution indicative of personal retaliation. Applying the principles in Bhajan Lal, Mahmood Ali, and Eicher Tractors, the Court concluded that the prosecution appeared vexatious and malicious rather than a bona fide criminal proceeding. It further accepted the petitioner’s submission that continuation of such proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

The application was accordingly allowed, and the order dated 12 March 2015 taking cognizance under Section 354/34 IPC in Complaint Case No. 29994(C) of 2014, as well as the consequential criminal proceedings against the petitioner, was quashed.