Sections 325 and 326 IPC charges were quashed for want of supporting injury evidence.

The opposite party no. 2 lodged a complaint alleging that, on 23 March 2021, the petitioners assaulted her and family members, causing injuries and attempting to strike her with a sharp weapon. The complaint also alleged theft of a gold chain and outraging of modesty.

A charge-sheet was filed in G.R. Case No. 978 of 2021 for offences under Sections 341, 324, 326, 379, 354B and 34 IPC.

The petitioners sought quashing, arguing, among other things, that the allegations were embellished and that the investigation disclosed no basis for the more serious charges.

The Court noted a counter-case arising from the same incident and found that the parties had an inimical relationship.

1. Whether the materials collected during investigation justified continuing the proceeding against the petitioners under Sections 325 and 326 IPC.

2. Whether the entire proceeding should be quashed, or should continue in respect of the remaining charges.

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 empowers the High Court to quash a proceeding where continuation would amount to abuse of the process of court.

The Court considered Sections 325 and 326 IPC in assessing whether the investigation materials supported the alleged grievous hurt offences.

It also relied on Ishwar Chand Sharma & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., MANU/SC/0600/2026, concerning the significance of surrounding circumstances, prior litigation between parties, and strikingly identical witness statements when assessing whether a complaint may be a concocted account.

The Court considered the cross-complaints concerning the same incident, the parties’ existing rivalry, and the injury material in the case diary. It found that the complainant had sustained only a small swelling on the forehead and that the mother-in-law had not sustained an injury; no injury report or medical papers had been seized to support the allegations under Sections 325 or 326 IPC.

In those circumstances, the Court held that continuing the proceeding for those offences would be futile and would risk abuse of process. However, because some material supported the remaining allegations, it declined to quash the entire case.

The trial court was directed to proceed in accordance with law, and the case diary was ordered to be returned.