Proceedings may be quashed under Section 482 when the sole complainant turns hostile.

On 22.12.2021, the de facto complainant alleged that while travelling on his motorcycle past the applicant’s house, the applicant stopped him and, along with other accused persons, assaulted him with kicks, fists, an iron pipe and a stone, while preventing him from entering the local faliya due to an election-related dispute.

An FIR was registered at Umalla Police Station, Bharuch, for offences under Sections 341, 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 337 and 504 of the IPC and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act.

The applicant invoked Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings.

During the pendency of the application, the co-accused were acquitted after trial.

The de facto complainant, who was the prosecution’s material witness, had been declared hostile and stated that only an exchange of words had occurred, that the FIR was lodged due to a misunderstanding, and that no injury had been caused.

Although served, the de facto complainant did not appear before the High Court.

Whether the FIR and consequential criminal proceedings against the applicant should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC when the de facto complainant had turned hostile and the co-accused had already been acquitted after trial?

Whether continuation of the prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court where the complainant’s evidence substantially undermined the allegations and the prospects of conviction were bleak?

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which permits quashing of criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice.

The FIR alleged offences under Sections 341, 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 337 and 504 IPC and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act.

The Court relied on Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, AIR 1988 SC 709, holding that, while considering quashing, the Court may examine whether the uncontroverted allegations prima facie establish an offence and whether special circumstances show that continuation of the prosecution would be futile, particularly where the likelihood of conviction is bleak and the proceedings would constitute an abuse of process.

The Court considered the trial court’s judgment acquitting the co-accused and noted that the de facto complainant had not supported the prosecution case.

In his testimony, he stated that there had merely been an exchange of words, that the FIR resulted from a misunderstanding, and that the accused had caused no injury.

As the complainant was the prosecution’s sole material witness and had been declared hostile, the Court held that the foundational allegations in the FIR had been substantially weakened.

In light of the hostile testimony, the acquittal of the co-accused, and the complainant’s non-appearance before the High Court, the Court concluded that continuation of the proceedings against the applicant would serve no useful purpose and would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court under the principles stated in Madhavrao Scindia.

Rule was made absolute, and direct service was permitted.