Criminal prosecution initiated to settle private monetary disputes and wreak vengeance constitutes an abuse of process.

The prosecution was initiated by Respondent No. 2 (Informant), Principal of Premalok Mission School, alleging that the Petitioner (Shantanu Kumar Singh), employed as a Desk Clerk, committed criminal breach of trust by stealing cheque books and registers

The Petitioner earlier filed a Section 138 N.I. Act complaint against the Informant regarding a dishonored cheque of Rs. 56,00,000, which he claimed was a loan repayment for helping set up the school

Following a legal notice for the dishonored cheque, the Informant lodged the present FIR (Gopalpur P.S. Case No. 15 of 2009)

The Petitioner sought discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C., which was rejected by the Trial Court and subsequently upheld in revision

The Petitioner then moved the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing

1. Whether the criminal proceeding was maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive to settle a private financial dispute

2. Whether the lack of evidence regarding "entrustment" and employment status renders the prosecution for criminal breach of trust unsustainable

The Court primarily applied Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. regarding the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of law

It relied on the landmark precedent of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, which permits quashing when a proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide or maliciously instituted for vengeance

Regarding the charge of Criminal Breach of Trust under Section 406 IPC, the Court applied the principle from Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd., establishing that "entrustment" is a foundational and mandatory ingredient for the offence

The Court observed that the Informant suppressed the material fact that the Petitioner was her nephew and that she owed him Rs. 56 lakhs

The timing of the FIR—lodged only after a legal notice for a bounced cheque—suggested a retaliatory motive

Furthermore, the Court noted that the school's own regulatory filings with the CBSE did not list the Petitioner as an employee, making the claim of "entrustment" of school documents highly doubtful

The investigating agency failed to examine any students or provide an audit report to substantiate claims of embezzlement

The Court found that the Informant failed to reciprocate the Petitioner’s gesture of withdrawing his Section 138 complaint, highlighting the malicious nature of the continued prosecution

The High Court set aside the revisional order dated 01.04.2023 and the Trial Court's order dated 20.12.2019

Consequently, the entire criminal proceeding in Gopalpur P.S. Case No. 15 of 2009, including the charge sheet and cognition order, was quashed

The Court clarified that civil remedies remain open to the parties