Criminal prosecution instituted as a counterblast and tool for private vendetta constitutes an abuse of process.

The appellants are the brothers, father, and sister (Appellant No. 4) of Manish Kumar’s wife.

Respondent No. 2 (Informant) is a caretaker/domestic help for Manish Kumar.

The Informant alleged that on 29.06.2020, the appellants arrived from Vaishali to Saran, assaulted her, used caste-based slurs, and attempted to outrage her modesty to force her to vacate the premises.

The Appellants contended the case was a malicious counter-blast to a dowry harassment/torture FIR (Section 498A IPC) filed by Appellant No. 4 against her husband (the Informant’s employer) in Jaipur in January 2020.

Evidence was presented showing the Appellants were residents of Jaipur, and Appellant No. 1 was at his workplace in Jaipur on the date of the alleged occurrence.

The Court applied Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. regarding the inherent power of the High Court to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice.

It relied on Salib Alias Shalu alias Salim v. State of UP and Mohd. Wajid v. State of U.P., which mandate courts to look beyond the FIR averments in potentially frivolous or vexatious litigations.

It further utilized the four-step analytical framework from Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of UP to test the indubitable quality of the accused's evidence (alibi/residence) against the factual assertions of the complaint.

Principles from State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal were applied regarding the quashing of malicious prosecutions.

The Court observed that the FIR was a "counterblast" orchestrated by the Informant’s employers (the husband’s family) to pressure Appellant No. 4 into withdrawing her previous matrimonial case.

The Court found the allegations factually "dubious" because the date of occurrence coincided with a nationwide COVID-19 lockdown, making it improbable for the appellants to travel 1,000 km from Jaipur to Saran.

Electronic evidence (CCTV and biometrics) of Appellant No. 1’s presence in Jaipur was deemed "unimpeachable".

Furthermore, the investigation was criticized as "cryptic and perfunctory," failing to establish that the alleged caste-based slurs were made in "full public view" to denigrate the Informant’s prestige as required under Sections 3(r) and (s) of the SC/ST Act.

The Court held that the prosecution was a "vexatious, frivolous and malicious" exercise of private vendetta and that allowing it to continue would result in a miscarriage of justice.

No order as to costs was made.