Section 482 proceedings cannot be quashed where alibi, medical corroboration, and mala fides raise triable factual issues.

The petitioners, the parents of Kamalika De, sought quashing under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) of the criminal proceedings arising from Asansol South Police Station Case No. 366 of 2023, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2938 of 2023.

The case was initially registered as Asansol North Police Station Case No. 320 of 2023 under Sections 341, 323, 325, 447, 448, 427 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC, and a charge-sheet had been submitted against the petitioners.

The petitioners’ daughter was married to Opposite Party No. 2 on 26 January 2014.

Following alleged matrimonial discord, medical problems including Systemic Lupus Erythematosus and Bipolar Disorder, she left the matrimonial home and initiated divorce, domestic violence and criminal proceedings in Delhi.

Thereafter, Opposite Party No. 2 initiated proceedings in West Bengal alleging that, on 10 June 2023, the petitioners and other relatives forcibly entered his Asansol residence, assaulted him, caused damage and threatened him with a kitchen knife.

The petitioners contended that the Asansol case was a mala fide counterblast to the Delhi proceedings, that there was no contemporaneous medical or injury report, and that Petitioner No. 1’s corporate attendance records established his presence in Delhi on 9 and 12 June 2023, making his presence in Asansol on 10 June 2023 impossible.

The State and Opposite Party No. 2 opposed quashing, submitting that the police had collected sufficient material and that the alibi and other disputed factual matters required trial.

Whether the Asansol criminal proceeding was a mala fide and retaliatory counterblast to the matrimonial, domestic violence and criminal proceedings initiated by the petitioners’ daughter in Delhi.

Whether the absence of contemporaneous medical or injury documentation rendered the charge-sheet legally unsustainable or demonstrated an abuse of the process of law.

Whether Petitioner No. 1’s plea of alibi, supported by corporate attendance records, justified quashing the prosecution under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court at the pre-trial stage.

The Court applied the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice, while reiterating that such power must be exercised sparingly and cannot ordinarily be used to conduct a mini-trial.

Under State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, proceedings may be quashed where they are manifestly attended with mala fides or instituted maliciously to wreak vengeance.

Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre permits consideration of special features and the likelihood of conviction at the initial stage, but only where continuation of the prosecution would be unjustified.

Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar cautions against prosecuting family members on vague and omnibus allegations without specific overt acts.

The Court also relied on the general principles concerning abuse of process stated in State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy and Mahmood Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh.

The plea of alibi is a factual defence requiring proof under Section 103 of the Evidence Act and ordinarily must be tested through evidence and cross-examination at trial.

The absence of medical evidence may affect the weight of the prosecution case but, by itself, does not justify quashing where the allegations and investigation disclose cognizable offences.

The Court accepted that the chronology of the Delhi proceedings and the subsequent Asansol complaint raised a question regarding possible retaliatory motive, but held that the complaint disclosed distinct and specific allegations of house trespass, assault, damage and criminal intimidation.

The existence of matrimonial litigation therefore did not, by itself, establish that the prosecution was manifestly malicious or inherently impossible.

Unlike a case involving vague or omnibus allegations against extended family members, the allegations here attributed specific acts in relation to a particular incident at a specified place and time.

The lack of contemporaneous medical or injury records was treated as an evidentiary weakness relevant to the trial, not as a jurisdictional defect in the charge-sheet.

Since the police had recorded witness statements and filed a charge-sheet, the reliability of the ocular evidence and the effect of the missing medical evidence could not be assessed under Section 482 without impermissibly weighing evidence.

Similarly, the corporate attendance records relied upon for the alibi might constitute a substantial defence, but their authenticity, scope and legal effect required formal proof and examination at trial.

The High Court could not treat those documents as conclusive at the quashing stage.

As the uncontroverted allegations disclosed cognizable offences and the disputed matters were factual, the stringent threshold for quashing was not met.

The criminal revision application was dismissed, and no legal infirmity or jurisdictional error was found in the charge-sheet or consequential proceedings.

The petitioners were left at liberty to raise their defences, including the alibi and other contentions, before the Trial Court at the appropriate stage of discharge or framing of charge.

Any interim order was vacated, CRAN 4 of 2025 was disposed of, and there was no order as to costs.