Delayed complaint and absence of injury evidence justified quashing prosecution as an abuse of process.

The petitioner, a police constable, was accused of forcibly taking the second respondent into a police vehicle and assaulting him during an incident on 27 September 2008.

The petitioner relied on the delay in the complaint, the absence of contemporaneous medical treatment or supporting injury records, and the fact that he was not named in the initial charge sheet.

Following further investigation by the CID, he was arrayed as an accused in C.C. No. 867/2015 for an offence under Section 394 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

He sought to quash the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.

The State confirmed that the petitioner was added after the CID’s further investigation and submitted that no document showed the complainant had sustained injuries.

Section 482 CrPC empowers the High Court to quash criminal proceedings where their continuation would amount to an abuse of process or otherwise result in miscarriage of justice.

The charge against the petitioner was under Section 394 read with Section 34 IPC; the judgment also referred to Sections 394 and 323 IPC when considering the allegations of assault and the absence of evidence of injury.

No precedent was cited.

The Court considered that the petitioner was not named in the initial charge sheet and was added only after further CID investigation. It also noted that the complaint was made about 25 days after the incident, the complainant did not seek treatment immediately, and the hospital history recorded approximately ten days later stated that he had fallen. The Court found no supporting material showing that the complainant sustained injuries, and the State acknowledged the absence of such documentation.

On these facts, the Court concluded that continuing the prosecution against the petitioner would constitute an abuse of process.