Quashing of retaliatory FIR where civil land dispute is weaponized and victim non-examination suggests abuse of process.

The petitioners moved the High Court to quash a cognizance order dated 24.04.2023 involving offences under Sections 341, 323, 354, 504, 506, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The complaint (Case No. 15 of 2023) alleged that Petitioner No. 1 misbehaved with the informant’s daughter, while Petitioners No. 2 and 3 assaulted the informant’s son and husband.

The dispute originated from a land sale on 09.11.2022 by the informant to Petitioner No. 1's mother; following the sale, the informant allegedly demanded extra money.

This led to cross-FIRs: Case No. 14 of 2023 filed by the petitioners’ side alleging brutal assault, and Case No. 15 of 2023 filed by the informant the following day.

1. Whether the criminal proceedings in Chanan P.S. Case No. 15 of 2023 constitute an abuse of the process of law initiated as a retaliatory "counter-blast" to a civil land dispute.

2. Whether the non-examination of the victim in an investigation involving Section 354 IPC vitiates the prosecution.

The court exercised its inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (the successor to Section 482 of the CrPC), which allows the High Court to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice.

The court examined the principles governing "counter-blast" litigations where civil disputes are given a criminal cloak.

The necessity of victim statements under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure/BNSS to substantiate allegations of outraging modesty.

The Court observed that the criminal cases were mirror-image retaliatory complaints stemming from a single civil land transaction.

A critical procedural lapse was noted: although the gravamen of the complaint was the outraging of modesty (Section 354 IPC), the investigating officer failed to examine the informant’s daughter under either Section 161 or 164 CrPC/BNSS.

The Court reasoned that submitting a chargesheet without the victim's statement in such a case indicates the prosecution was not based on a genuine grievance but was a retaliatory measure.

Furthermore, the court noted that the petitioners included a qualified engineer with a railway appointment and a final-year student, concluding that continuing a baseless prosecution would cause irreversible prejudice to their careers.

The Court answered both issues in the affirmative, finding the case to be a retaliatory counter-blast and the investigation fundamentally flawed. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and quashed all proceedings arising out of both Chanan P.S. Case No. 14 of 2023 and Chanan P.S. Case No. 15 of 2023 as against the petitioners.