Proceedings against similarly placed accused may be quashed on parity with co-accused.

The six petitioners were arraigned as accused Nos. 5, 14, 20, 21, 31 and 32 in C.C. No. 29573/2022, arising from Crime No. 454/2022, for alleged offences under Sections 66, 66B, 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and Sections 419, 420, 201 and 120B read with Section 149 of the IPC

They sought quashing of the proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC / Section 528 of the BNSS

They relied on earlier orders quashing proceedings against accused Nos. 16 and 17 in the same case

Whether the proceedings against the petitioners, accused Nos. 5, 14, 20, 21, 31 and 32, should be quashed on the ground of parity with accused Nos. 16 and 17, whose proceedings had already been quashed

Section 482 of the CrPC (and its corresponding provision, Section 528 of the BNSS, as invoked in the petition) empowers the High Court to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice

The Court applied the doctrine of parity, reasoning that similarly situated accused in the same criminal case may receive equivalent relief where proceedings against co-accused have already been quashed.

In the earlier orders relied upon, the Court had quashed proceedings where the material was found insufficient to connect the petitioners with the alleged offences; those orders formed the basis for extending parity in the present case

The Court noted that proceedings against accused Nos. 16 and 17 in C.C. No. 29573/2022 had been quashed in earlier petitions

It accepted the petitioners’ parity argument and, without setting out a separate assessment of the evidence against each petitioner, held that the same relief should extend to accused Nos. 5, 14, 20, 21, 31 and 32