Omnibus allegations without identification or a specific role do not sustain criminal proceedings against an accused.

Respondent No. 2 complained that a group of persons gathered at the Hosakote toll plaza, assaulted employees, damaged toll-booth property and computer systems, took toll-collection cash, and set fire to the booths.

The police initially registered the FIR against 30 persons and, after investigation, filed a charge sheet against 56 persons, including the petitioner as accused No. 53, for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 114, 323, 427, 435, 327, 504, 506B read with Section 149 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Karnataka Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981.

The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., stated in the petition heading to be filed under Section 528 BNSS, contending that neither the complaint nor the charge sheet attributed a specific act to him.

1. Whether the charge-sheet materials disclosed a specific role or overt act by the petitioner sufficient to proceed against him for the alleged offences.

2. Whether continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, in the absence of such material, would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.

The Court considered its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the petition also referred to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita), to quash criminal proceedings.

It assessed whether the allegations and materials in the charge sheet, taken at face value, disclosed the petitioner’s participation and the essential ingredients of the alleged offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 114, 323, 427, 435, 327, 504, 506B and 149 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Karnataka Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981.

The judgment cited no precedent.

The Court noted that the complaint referred generally to a gathering of 100 to 150 persons, while the petitioner was implicated during the investigation.

The charge sheet attributed specific acts to certain named accused but made no specific allegation or attribution of an overt act to the petitioner; the witness statements likewise disclosed no specific act by him.

The Court therefore concluded that, even accepting the charge-sheet allegations at face value, the essential ingredients of the alleged offences were not made out against the petitioner, and that continuing the proceedings against him would constitute an abuse of the Court’s process.

It expressly directed that proceedings against the other accused would continue.