Vague, generalized allegations motivated by personal vendetta warrant quashing as an abuse of process.

The petitioner, Abhishek Kumar, was named in Complaint Case No. 1839 of 2014/81 of 2014, in which the complainant alleged that co-accused Malkhan Singh attempted to rape her during the night, threatened her with a pistol, and later, along with the petitioner and other villagers, entered the complainant’s house, abused and assaulted her husband and mother-in-law, and issued threats.

The Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Gaya, issued process against the petitioner and others for offences under Sections 452, 354, 147 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code by order dated 2 March 2015.

The petitioner sought quashing of the proceedings, contending that the allegations against him were vague and omnibus, that there was no specific allegation constituting the offences, and that the complaint had been instituted maliciously after an earlier case had been lodged by co-accused Malkhan Singh against the complainant’s husband and others.

Despite several opportunities, the complainant did not appear before the High Court; the State opposed the application.

Whether the criminal proceedings and the order issuing process against the petitioner for offences under Sections 452, 354, 147 and 323 IPC should be quashed where the allegations against him were general and lacked specific individual attribution?

Whether continuation of the prosecution against the petitioner constituted an abuse of the process of law because the complaint appeared to be malicious and vexatious, attracting category 7 of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal?

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to prevent abuse of the process of court. It considered the offences alleged under Sections 452, 354, 147 and 323 IPC, which require material allegations connecting the accused with house-trespass, assault or criminal force to a woman, unlawful assembly, and voluntarily causing hurt, respectively.

The Court relied principally on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, particularly category 7, under which criminal proceedings may be quashed where they are manifestly attended with mala fides or instituted maliciously for an ulterior purpose.

It also referred to Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749, and Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618, for the principle that the Magistrate must independently apply his mind to the allegations and material against each accused and that criminal liability cannot be imposed merely through collective or omnibus allegations.

The Court further considered Eicher Tractors Ltd. v. Harihar Singh, (2008) 16 SCC 763, and Sunil Kumar v. State of U.P., 2023 INSC 668, concerning vexatious prosecution and harassment through prolonged continuation of proceedings in a petty case.

The Court distinguished the specific allegations against co-accused Malkhan Singh—namely, the alleged attempted rape, use of a pistol and stone-pelting—from the vague and generalized allegations against the petitioner and the other co-accused, who were collectively alleged to have entered the house, abused the complainant’s family and assaulted them.

The complaint and the surrounding circumstances indicated that the principal dispute concerned the earlier alleged theft by Malkhan Singh and that the petitioner had not been implicated in the earlier matter.

The subsequent inclusion of the petitioner through an exaggerated version of events, coupled with the absence of individualized allegations, led the Court to conclude that the prosecution was malicious and vexatious.

Applying category 7 of Bhajan Lal and the requirement of individual judicial scrutiny stated in Pepsi Foods and Ramesh Kumar, the Court held that continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of court.

Accordingly, the order dated 2 March 2015 issuing process/taking cognizance in Complaint Case No. 1839 of 2014/81 of 2014 was quashed insofar as it concerned the petitioner. The criminal miscellaneous application was allowed.