High Court Quashes Vexatious Counter-Complaint Lodged as Private Vendetta to Retaliate Against Prior Criminal Prosecution

The Petitioner, a 75-year-old retired citizen, filed a criminal complaint and a civil suit against Opposite Party No. 2 (OP2) alleging that OP2 fraudulently used a power of attorney to misappropriate ₹40 lakhs

Consequently, OP2 was arrested and detained for a considerable period

Following his release on bail, OP2 filed a complaint (C. Case No. 342 of 2021) alleging that on July 25, 2021, the Petitioner and 7–8 others assaulted him, damaged his motorcycle, and snatched ₹6,200

The Petitioner moved the High Court seeking quashing of these proceedings, contending the case was a malicious "counterblast" to his prior legal actions

1. Whether the criminal proceedings against the Petitioner should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the grounds of being a vexatious/malicious prosecution

2. Whether the Magistrate failed to apply judicial mind while taking cognizance despite significant delays and factual inconsistencies in the complaint

The court primarily applied Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. regarding the inherent power of the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of law

It relied on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, specifically categories (1), (5), and (7), which permit quashing when allegations are absurd or the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive

It further cited Uma Shankar Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2025 INSC 653] regarding the seriousness of summoning an accused

Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal, emphasizing that criminal prosecution must not be used for private vendetta

The Court observed that the complaint filed by OP2 lacked specific overt acts and failed to explain a 45-day delay in filing

The Court noted that the date of the incident was manually altered in the complaint and that OP2 failed to provide medical evidence of assault or proof of reporting to the police

Crucially, the Court found an "inimical relationship" between the parties, noting that OP2 filed nearly identical complaints against the Petitioner’s brother and only took action after being arrested in the Petitioner’s forgery case

The Court determined that the absence of specific details, combined with the pending civil and criminal litigations initiated by the Petitioner, indicated the case was a product of afterthought and personal vengeance intended to harass a septuagenarian

It held that the allegations did not disclose a sustainable case and were clearly motivated by a "counterblast" to the Petitioner's earlier FIR

Consequently, the High Court allowed the revisional application and quashed the entire proceeding in C. Case No. 342 of 2021 pending before the 2nd Judicial Magistrate, Basirhat