Vague omnibus allegations and absence of incriminating material warrant quashing proceedings against accused.

The complainant alleged that Accused Nos. 1 and 2, who were her mother and sister respectively, visited her residence after her love marriage and induced her to hand over gold ornaments and documents, including her husband’s passport, election card and Aadhaar card, on the pretext of keeping them safe. They allegedly failed to return the articles and committed breach of trust and cheating, while Accused Nos. 3 to 5 allegedly instigated or assisted them.

An FIR bearing No. I-21/2014 was registered at B Division Police Station, Bharuch, for offences under Sections 406, 420, 114 and 504 of the IPC. The petitioners sought quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC. Petitioner No. 5 had died during the proceedings, and the petition was not pressed on behalf of Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2. The Court therefore considered the petition principally as it related to Petitioners Nos. 3 and 4.

Whether the FIR, investigation papers and charge-sheet disclosed the essential ingredients of offences under Sections 406, 420, 504 and 114 of the IPC against Petitioners Nos. 3 and 4, warranting continuation of the criminal proceedings.

Whether vague and omnibus allegations that the accused quarrelled with and abused the complainant were sufficient to constitute the offence of intentional insult punishable under Section 504 of the IPC.

Whether the FIR and consequential proceedings against Petitioners Nos. 3 and 4 ought to be quashed in exercise of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC.

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC to prevent continuation of criminal proceedings where the FIR and investigation material do not disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences.

Section 406 of the IPC requires entrustment and dishonest misappropriation or conversion of property, while Section 420 requires cheating and dishonest inducement. For Section 504, there must be intentional insult, provocation of the person insulted, and the intention or knowledge that such provocation is likely to cause a breach of public peace or commission of another offence.

The Court also relied on Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., reported in 2024 (10) SCC 690, for the proposition that Sections 406 and 420 IPC cannot co-exist in the circumstances considered by the Court.

The Court found that the investigation papers, witness statements, recovery material and charge-sheet did not attribute any specific overt act or incriminating material to Petitioners Nos. 3 and 4.

Their alleged involvement was unsupported by specific allegations connecting them with the taking, retention or dishonest misappropriation of the complainant’s property, and therefore the ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 IPC were not established prima facie.

The allegations that the accused generally visited the complainant, quarrelled with her and used abusive language were vague and omnibus. They did not identify any specific intentional insult or demonstrate the requisite intention or likelihood of provoking a breach of public peace, and hence did not constitute an offence under Section 504 IPC.

In the absence of material showing participation by Petitioners Nos. 3 and 4, continuation of the proceedings against them would amount to wrongly roping them into the case.

The FIR bearing No. I-21/2014 and all consequential proceedings were quashed and set aside insofar as Petitioners Nos. 3 and 4 were concerned.

The petition was not pressed as to Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2; proceedings against them were permitted to continue in accordance with law, without being influenced by the order, and any interim relief in their favour was vacated.