Departmental exoneration on identical evidence warrants quashing criminal prosecution.

A preliminary enquiry into allegations that a police head constable had obtained call-detail records and tower-dump information without authorization did not name the petitioner. During a subsequent investigation, she was named as accused No. 5 and alleged to have received ₹69,999 and ₹1 from accused No. 2. The enquiry material, however, indicated that the payments had been made by her brother through UPI. The petitioner was also exonerated in a departmental enquiry that considered the material relied upon in the criminal case.

After a charge-sheet was filed for offences under Sections 409, 384, 420, 120B and 204 read with Section 34 IPC, and cognizance was taken, she sought quashing of the proceedings under Section 528 BNSS.

Whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioner should be quashed where the departmental enquiry, on the same material, exonerated her and the enquiry report indicated that she had not received the alleged payments from accused No. 2.

Whether continuation of the prosecution against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, empowers the High Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

The Court relied on Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI and Another, reported as 2022(1) Kar. L.J. 351 (SC), for the principle that where, on the same facts and material, a person is found innocent in a departmental enquiry and the allegations are not sustainable on merits, a criminal prosecution may not be allowed to continue, having regard to the higher standard of proof in criminal cases.

It also noted that a coordinate Bench had quashed proceedings arising from the same set of facts and circumstances.

The Court considered that the petitioner was not named in the preliminary enquiry report and that the material relied on in the charge-sheet attributed the payments to her brother rather than to accused No. 2.

It further found that the departmental enquiry had considered the material in the criminal case and had exonerated the petitioner on the same set of facts.

Applying the principle in Ashoo Surendranath Tewari and noting the coordinate Bench’s decision concerning the same facts, the Court concluded that continuing the prosecution against the petitioner would constitute an abuse of process.

Pending interlocutory applications were dismissed.