Omnibus allegations without specific overt acts cannot sustain criminal proceedings against a relative.

Respondent No. 2 alleged that the petitioner (Accused No. 2) and others trespassed into his office, threatened him, and forcibly removed belongings, including a mobile phone, motorcycle, chairs and sofa. The complaint, lodged on 11 July 2023, also alleged a further break-in and theft on 27 May 2023.

The dispute arose after Respondent No. 2 and his wife executed a registered sale deed in favour of Accused No. 1, the petitioner’s son; Accused No. 1 later obtained an interim injunction against Respondent No. 2 in a civil suit.

The petitioner sought to quash the FIR under Section 482 CrPC, arguing that no specific act was attributed to him and that he was implicated because of his relationship with Accused No. 1. He also relied on a similar complaint lodged the next day at another police station. The State and complainant opposed quashing, contending that investigation was required.

1. Whether the FIR, read with the material on record, disclosed a cognizable offence against the petitioner despite the absence of any specific role or overt act attributed to him

2. Whether continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner amounted to an abuse of process in the context of the civil property dispute and the surrounding circumstances

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the High Court to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice. Under R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, proceedings may be quashed where the allegations, accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the alleged offence; under State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy, the Court may consider whether the allegations and material disclose an offence, while avoiding an assessment of the evidentiary merits ordinarily reserved for trial.

The Court also relied on Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P., (2023) 15 SCC 488, which states that where proceedings are alleged to be frivolous, vexatious, or brought with an ulterior motive, the Court may look beyond the complaint’s wording to the surrounding circumstances and materials.

The Court considered the complaint alongside the property transaction, the pending civil suit, and the interim injunction granted to Accused No. 1 shortly before the complaint was filed. It noted that the complaint concerning an incident said to have occurred on 20 May 2023 was lodged on 11 July 2023 without an explanation for the delay, and that a similar complaint against the petitioner was lodged at another police station the following day.

More importantly, the complaint and record attributed no specific role or overt act to the petitioner; he was implicated as Accused No. 2 principally because he was Accused No. 1’s father and was not a party to either the sale deed or the civil suit. Applying the principles in Mahmood Ali and the Section 482 authorities, the Court concluded that even if the allegations were accepted at face value, they did not make out an offence against the petitioner and that continuing proceedings against him would constitute an abuse of process.

It clarified that the investigation and proceedings could continue against the other accused in accordance with law.