Parallel prosecution on identical allegations is an abuse of process warranting quashing.

Respondents 2 and 3 filed a private complaint, PCR No. 19389/2021, alleging offences under Sections 120B, 166A, 415, 419, 420, 477 and 477A IPC.

The Magistrate referred it for police investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC, following which Basaveshwaranagar Police registered Crime No. 270/2021.

The petitioner, arrayed as accused No. 2, sought to quash the complaint and the resulting proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.

He relied on earlier decisions quashing similar complaints; the High Court noted that the present complaint’s allegations were identical to those in the earlier proceedings.

Whether the proceedings arising from PCR No. 19389/2021 should be quashed because similar proceedings concerning the same alleged offences were already pending before the Special Court.

Whether the Magistrate’s referral of the complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC, by an allegedly unreasoned order, provided a further ground to quash the proceedings.

Section 482 CrPC empowers the High Court to quash criminal proceedings where their continuation would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

The Court adopted the coordinate bench’s reasoning that a person should not be subjected to parallel proceedings for the same offences where related proceedings are already pending.

It also relied on the principle, attributed to Om Prakash (the full citation is not provided in the judgment), that a Magistrate’s referral under Section 156(3) CrPC must reflect application of mind and provide reasons; a cryptic, non-speaking and unreasoned referral is unsustainable.

The Court found that the allegations in the present complaint were identical to those in similar complaints previously quashed by a coordinate bench.

It also relied on that bench’s finding that proceedings concerning the alleged offences, alongside offences under the KPIDFE Act, were already pending before the Special Court, where the petitioner was an accused and respondent No. 2 was a witness.

The coordinate bench had further held that the Magistrate’s unreasoned Section 156(3) referral was defective.

The High Court held that these grounds applied equally to the present case and that continuing the proceedings would be an abuse of process.

The High Court quashed, as against the petitioner, the entire proceedings in Crime No. 270/2021 arising from PCR No. 19389/2021, registered for offences under Sections 120B, 166A, 415, 419, 420, 477 and 477A IPC.