Quashing of Complaint Case Initiated as Malicious Counter-Blast to Promptly Lodged Police FIR

The petitioners (aged 19–26) sought the quashing of an order dated 11.09.2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Patna City, taking cognizance of offences under Sections 341, 323, 504, and 34 of the IPC.

The complaint, filed by Opposite Party No. 2 on 29.04.2023, alleged that the petitioners assaulted him with fists and slaps and snatched a watch and Rs. 7,000/-.

The petitioners contended the complaint was a "counter-blast" to an FIR (Khushrupur P.S. Case No. 152 of 2023) lodged by Petitioner No. 1 on 26.04.2023 against the respondent’s son for causing serious head injuries.

There was a three-day delay in filing the complaint, and inquiry witnesses admitted the incident only involved "slaps" between neighbors.

1. Whether the criminal proceeding initiated via the complaint was a malicious prosecution intended to wreak vengeance following a prior FIR filed by the petitioners.

2. Whether the allegations in the complaint and inquiry statements, taken at face value, prima facie constitute the offences alleged under Sections 341, 323, and 504 of the IPC.

The Court primarily applied the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of the process of law.

It relied on the landmark precedent of State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335), specifically categories (1) and (7), which mandate quashing when allegations do not constitute a prima facie offence or when proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide and instituted maliciously for wreaking vengeance due to a private grudge.

The Court observed that the FIR lodged by Petitioner No. 1 preceded the respondent's complaint and involved a serious head injury, whereas the respondent's complaint was filed after a three-day delay following "thought and deliberation".

Upon reviewing the statements of inquiry witnesses, the Court found that the allegations of snatching cash and a watch appeared "ornamental" and the physical altercation was described merely as "slaps".

The Court reasoned that since no injury was suffered by the complainant and the parties were neighbors with no prior ill will, the complaint lacked substance.

It further noted that the essential ingredients of "wrongful restraint" (Section 341) or "hurt" (Section 323) were not established by the vague and general allegations.

Consequently, the Court determined the prosecution was a retaliatory measure (counter-blast) designed to harass the petitioners.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the application and quashed the order of cognizance and issuance of summons dated 11.09.2023 passed in Complaint Case No. 517 of 2023.