Malicious prosecution arising from encroachment removal was quashed as an abuse of process.

The complainant alleged that the petitioners, including public officials, came to demolish his house while implementing an encroachment-removal order, assaulted and threatened him and his family, and removed household articles

An earlier complaint had been referred to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.; after investigation, the police submitted a final form finding the accusations false.

The Magistrate accepted the final form but treated a protest petition as a complaint, held an inquiry, and took cognizance under Sections 147, 323, 427, 380, 452, 504 and 506 IPC

The petitioners sought quashing, relying on the parties’ history of litigation concerning alleged encroachments and contending that the prosecution was malicious

1. Whether the allegations and circumstances disclosed offences warranting continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioners

2. Whether the cognizance order should be quashed as continuation of the prosecution would amount to abuse of the process of the court

The Court considered the offences alleged under Sections 147, 323, 427, 380, 452, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, concerning unlawful assembly, hurt, mischief, theft, house-trespass, intentional insult and criminal intimidation

It relied on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, and Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749, cited for the High Court’s power to quash criminal proceedings where their continuation would constitute an abuse of the process of the court

The Court considered the parties’ history of litigation over the removal of alleged encroachments and the prior proceedings initiated by petitioner No. 3 to secure compliance with court orders

In that context, it found that the complaint had been filed with malicious intent and that the allegations did not make out criminal trespass, theft in a dwelling house or criminal intimidation

It therefore concluded that continuing the prosecution would amount to an abuse of process

It quashed the cognizance order dated 20 December 2016 in Complaint Case No. C-35/2016 and allowed the application