Proceedings Against Managers Quashed for Lack of Offence Ingredients and Common Intention

The complainant alleged that an unknown person, arraigned as accused No. 4, credited ₹14,049 to his personal account through PhonePe on 24 January 2025.

He further alleged that accused No. 1 falsely complained to the company that the complainant had demanded money and blackmailed him; following a show-cause notice and the complainant’s reply, the company terminated his employment on 11 April 2025.

The complainant filed PCR No. 4/2025 against the petitioners, who were accused Nos. 2 and 3, and others, alleging offences under Sections 324(5), 336(4), and 356(1), read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The Magistrate referred the complaint for investigation under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), resulting in registration of Crime No. 48/2026.

The petitioners sought to quash the complaint proceedings and FIR under Section 528 BNSS.

1. Whether the complaint and accompanying material disclosed the ingredients of the alleged BNS offences against the petitioners.

2. Whether the proceedings and FIR should be quashed insofar as they concerned the petitioners.

Section 324(5) BNS concerns mischief causing loss or damage of ₹1 lakh or more; Section 336(4) concerns forgery intended, or known to be likely, to harm a person’s reputation; and Section 356(1) concerns making or publishing an imputation with the requisite intent or knowledge to harm reputation.

Section 3(5) BNS was relevant to the allegation of common intention.

The Court considered whether the complaint contained material showing the petitioners’ participation in the alleged offences and a meeting of minds with the other accused.

It exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to quash proceedings where the allegations and supporting material disclosed no prima facie offence against the petitioners and continuation would amount to abuse of process.

The Court found no allegation that the petitioners’ conduct caused the requisite loss or damage for Section 324(5), involved forgery of a document or electronic record for Section 336(4), or amounted to defamation under Section 356(1).

Nor did the complaint or accompanying material show a common intention or meeting of minds between the petitioners and accused Nos. 1 and 4.

Even assuming that the petitioners, as company officials, participated in terminating the complainant’s employment, the Court held that such conduct did not constitute any of the offences alleged; any employment-related grievance could be pursued before an appropriate forum.

The Court therefore concluded that no prima facie case was made out against the petitioners and that continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process.

It quashed PCR No. 4/2025 and the consequential FIR in Crime No. 48/2026 insofar as they related to the petitioners/accused Nos. 2 and 3.