FIR quashed against accused where complaint disclosed no role or allegations attracting the charged offences.

The second respondent complained to Jeevan Bhima Nagar Police that, on 25 November 2024, Santosh and employees of another company trespassed into and locked her company’s premises, causing financial loss; she further alleged that Santosh later abused and assaulted her.

The police registered Crime No. 0328/2024 under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(w) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and Sections 115(2), 126(2) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Lakshmi M sought to quash the FIR insofar as it concerned her, contending that the complaint alleged no role or conduct on her part.

The State opposed the petition, referring to a counter-complaint arising from the same incident and the decision in State of Karnataka, by Circle Inspector of Police v. Hosakeri Ningappa, ILR 2012 KAR 509.

1. Whether the complaint contained allegations or attributed any overt act to the petitioner capable of attracting the offences alleged in the FIR.

2. Whether the existence of a counter-complaint arising from the same incident required the FIR against the petitioner to remain under investigation.

The petition invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, under which the High Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process.

The FIR invoked Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(w) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and Sections 115(2), 126(2) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The Court applied the principle that continuation of criminal proceedings against a person is an abuse of process where the complaint attributes no overt act or other allegation to that person that could attract the offences charged.

It also referred to Hosakeri Ningappa concerning investigation of cases arising from the same incident.

The complaint’s narrative attributed the alleged trespass, abusive conduct and assault to Santosh and other employees, but did not identify any role or conduct by Lakshmi.

The Court therefore found no allegation against her capable of attracting the offences charged, making continuation of the criminal proceedings against her an abuse of process.

Although the State relied on a counter-complaint, the Court’s direction to investigate the remaining accused in accordance with Hosakeri Ningappa did not justify continuing the FIR against the petitioner in the absence of allegations against her.

It directed that the investigation concerning the remaining accused proceed in accordance with law and the guidelines in Hosakeri Ningappa.