Criminal prosecution may be quashed when identical allegations are rejected on merits in departmental proceedings.

The petitioners, serving engineers in the Water Drainage Division, sought to quash an FIR registered under Sections 420, 511 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the resulting charge-sheet, and the order taking cognizance.

The FIR alleged that they pressured a Junior Engineer to issue backdated hand receipts for larger quantities of EC bags and nylon crates than had been received, and to alter the related records

In departmental proceedings, the petitioners were exonerated of Charges 1 and 3, while found partially guilty of Charge 2; Charge 3 concerned the conduct underlying the FIR.

The opposite party No. 2 did not seriously oppose the quashing application and accepted that the FIR allegations corresponded to Charge 3.

1. Whether criminal proceedings may be quashed where the allegations are identical to a departmental charge on which the petitioners were exonerated on merits.

2. Whether, in the circumstances of this case, continuation of the FIR, charge-sheet and cognizance order would constitute an abuse of the process of law warranting relief under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

Sections 420, 511 and 34 IPC formed the basis of the FIR; Section 482 CrPC empowered the High Court to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

Under Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of West Bengal, (2011) 3 SCC 581, as explained in Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI, (2020) 9 SCC 636, the relevant consideration is whether the allegations in the departmental and criminal proceedings are identical and whether exoneration was on merits; where the foundational allegations are found unsustainable, criminal prosecution may amount to abuse of process.

The Court also referred to P.S. Rajya v. State of Bihar, (1996) 9 SCC 1, while recognising that departmental and criminal proceedings apply different standards of proof and that departmental exoneration does not automatically terminate a prosecution.

The Court found that Charge 3 in the departmental proceedings corresponded to the FIR allegation of pressuring the informant to obtain backdated receipts for quantities exceeding those received.

The petitioners had been exonerated of that charge on merits, with the departmental record stating that it was not proved and the evidence was insufficient.

Although the Court acknowledged that departmental exoneration does not ordinarily or automatically bar criminal prosecution, it considered the identity of the allegations, the merits-based exoneration, and the absence of opposition from the informant.

In those circumstances, it concluded that continuing the prosecution would constitute abuse of process.

It quashed the FIR, the prosecution arising from it—including the charge-sheet—and the order taking cognizance, insofar as they concerned the petitioners; the application was allowed.