Full restitution of withdrawn public funds rendered continued criminal prosecution an abuse of process.

The petitioner, Anjum Praveen, was the Sarpanch of Satha Gram Kachahari.

The prosecution alleged that ₹1,41,800 was withdrawn from the Gram Kachahari’s SBI account through her sole Aadhaar-based biometric authentication, although withdrawals were required to bear the joint signatures of the Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch.

An FIR was registered, and the police submitted Charge-Sheet No. 47 of 2018 alleging offences under Sections 406, 409, 420, 120-B, 467 and 468 of the IPC.

The learned ACJM-I, Jamui, took cognizance of those offences on 6 July 2018.

The petitioner contended that the withdrawal was made for purchasing furniture for the Gram Kachahari, that furniture worth ₹55,000 was purchased for official purposes, and that the remaining amount was subsequently deposited into the Gram Kachahari account.

The petitioner relied on deposits totalling ₹1,60,000 made between 24 November and 21 December 2017.

The learned APP did not dispute these factual submissions or the supporting documents.

Whether the criminal proceedings arising from Chandradeep P.S. Case No. 23 of 2018, including the order taking cognizance dated 6 July 2018, should be quashed in exercise of the High Court’s jurisdiction to prevent abuse of the process of law, in view of the alleged official use and subsequent return of the withdrawn amount.

Whether the undisputed repayment of ₹1,60,000 and the petitioner’s explanation regarding the expenditure for Gram Kachahari furniture rendered continuation of the prosecution unjustified.

The prosecution invoked Sections 406, 409, 420, 120-B, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, concerning criminal breach of trust, criminal breach of trust by a public servant, cheating, criminal conspiracy and forgery-related offences.

The Court applied the principle that criminal proceedings may be quashed where their continuation would amount to an abuse of the process of the court.

Although no specific judicial precedent was cited in the judgment, the Court exercised its quashing jurisdiction on the basis of the undisputed factual circumstances, including the official purpose attributed to the expenditure and the subsequent restoration of the amount.

The Court accepted that part of the withdrawn amount had been used for an official purpose, namely, the purchase of furniture for the Gram Kachahari.

It further considered significant that the petitioner had deposited ₹1,60,000 back into the Gram Kachahari account and that the prosecution did not dispute the deposits or the supporting documents.

In these circumstances, the Court held that continuation of the prosecution, despite the alleged official utilisation and return of the entire amount, would amount to an abuse of the process of the court.

It quashed and set aside the order dated 6 July 2018 taking cognizance, together with all consequential proceedings against the petitioner arising out of Chandradeep P.S. Case No. 23 of 2018, pending before the ACJM-I, Jamui.

The application was accordingly allowed, and the trial court records were directed to be returned, if received.