Proceedings based solely on police testimony, without independent witnesses, were quashed as an abuse of process.

The petitioners, arrayed as Accused Nos. 1–17, challenged the cognizance order and charge sheet in C.C. No. 208/2020, arising from Crime No. 214/2019, registered for offences under Sections 143, 153, 117 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution alleged that, on 27 October 2019, the petitioners formed an unlawful assembly near the Ghouse Peer Qadri Dargah in Alambadi Kavalu Village, where Accused No. 1 made statements advocating unity and illegal activities that would disturb social tranquillity.

The police claimed that the raid party, concealed behind a fence, heard the statements; the petitioners argued that no independent witness had heard them and that the gathering at the Dargah on a Sunday was ordinary.

The High Court considered the petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

1. Whether, in the absence of any independent witness to the alleged statements and where the prosecution evidence consisted of police officials, continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process.

2. Whether the charge sheet and cognizance order should therefore be quashed.

The petition invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provide the High Court with jurisdiction to intervene in criminal proceedings.

The Court applied the principle that proceedings may be quashed where their continuation would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

The offences alleged were under Sections 143, 153, 117 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

The order cites no precedent or further statutory test.

The Court noted that the alleged gathering at the Dargah was said to be a regular occurrence on Sundays and that no independent person was identified as having heard the alleged statements; the prosecution’s account rested on the police officials in the raid party.

Finding that this circumstance supported the petitioners’ challenge, the Court concluded that continuing the proceedings would be an abuse of process.

The operative order describes the charge sheet as dated 26 July 2026, although the petition and earlier part of the judgment refer to it as dated 26 July 2020.