Proceedings lacking offence ingredients and lodged as a counterblast constitute abuse of process.

Opposite Party No. 2 alleged that Petitioner No. 1 had received ₹6,00,000 in 2010 for arranging his daughter’s marriage and had failed to repay it. He further alleged that on 2 February 2015 the petitioners assaulted him, attempted to strangulate him, and that one petitioner took ₹2,500 from his pocket.

On his complaint, Muzaffarpur Town P.S. Case No. 102 of 2015 was registered; police filed a charge-sheet under Sections 420, 406, 323, 307 and 380 read with Section 34 IPC, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance on 16 February 2016.

The petitioners sought quashing under Section 482 CrPC, contending that the prosecution was a counterblast to an earlier case filed by Petitioner No. 4 against Opposite Party No. 2, arising from a dispute over money and a sale transaction.

Whether the allegations and investigation materials disclosed a prima facie basis for cognizance of the alleged offences under Sections 420, 406, 323, 307 and 380 read with Section 34 IPC

Whether continuation of the prosecution amounted to an abuse of process, including because it was allegedly retaliatory and followed an earlier case between the parties

Section 482 CrPC empowers the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of court and secure the ends of justice.

For criminal breach of trust under Sections 405–406 IPC, the prosecution must establish entrustment or dominion over property and dishonest misappropriation, conversion, use or disposal in breach of the relevant legal direction or contract.

Cheating under Sections 415 and 420 IPC requires deception and fraudulent or dishonest inducement, including inducement to deliver property; mere failure to repay a sum, without dishonest intention at the inception, does not by itself establish cheating.

The court also held that cognizance must reflect application of judicial mind to the materials supporting prosecution.

Relying on Eicher Tractor Limited v. Harihar Singh, (2008) 16 SCC 763, it stated that continuation of proceedings shown to be a counterblast may amount to abuse of process.

The court found that the materials did not establish the necessary ingredients of Sections 420 or 406 IPC: the alleged loan and non-repayment did not, without more, demonstrate dishonest inducement at the outset or entrustment followed by dishonest misappropriation.

It further found that the charge-sheet contained only generalized assertions and no cogent material supporting the allegations under Sections 307 and 380 IPC; the cognizance order likewise identified no investigative material connecting the petitioners to those offences.

The court considered the earlier case filed by Petitioner No. 4, the timing of the subsequent complaint, and the parties’ underlying monetary dispute, and concluded that the prosecution was retaliatory and an abuse of process.

It allowed the petition under Section 482 CrPC and quashed the order dated 16 February 2016, together with all consequential criminal proceedings in Muzaffarpur Town P.S. Case No. 102 of 2015, qua the petitioners.