Proceedings against a similarly placed accused may be quashed on grounds of parity.

The petitioner, accused No. 30 in C.C. No. 29573/2022 arising from Crime No. 454/2022 of Whitefield CEN Crime Police Station, sought to quash the criminal proceedings against him. The case involved alleged offences under Sections 66, 66(B), 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and Sections 419, 420, 201 and 120(B), read with Section 149, of the IPC.

The Court noted that proceedings against accused Nos. 1, 6, 7, 11, 16 and 17 in the same case had previously been quashed in other petitions.

1. Whether the proceedings against accused No. 30 should be quashed by applying the doctrine of parity, given that proceedings against other accused in the same case had been quashed.

2. Whether the proceedings against the petitioner should be quashed under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS.

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provide the High Court with inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of court and secure the ends of justice.

The Court applied the doctrine of parity, relying on its earlier orders quashing proceedings against co-accused in the same case, including the orders in Crl.P. Nos. 8975/2022, 8708/2022, 4168/2025 and 16747/2025.

The Court treated the prior quashing orders concerning co-accused in Crime No. 454/2022 as establishing the basis for parity.

As the proceedings against accused Nos. 1, 6, 7, 11, 16 and 17 had already been quashed, it concluded that the proceedings against accused No. 30 also deserved to be quashed on the same principle.

The Court quashed the proceedings in C.C. No. 29573/2022, arising from Crime No. 454/2022, insofar as they concerned accused No. 30, for the offences under the specified provisions of the IT Act and IPC.