Vague omnibus allegations unsupported by investigation material cannot sustain cognizance against an exonerated accused.

The informant lodged a written report against her daughter, Anshu Kumari, Anshu’s husband Nagmani, and her granddaughter Anjali Kumari, alleging offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

The allegations principally concerned Nagmani’s alleged fraudulent withdrawal and use of the informant’s husband’s money during his medical treatment; the allegations against Anshu were general and omnibus.

After investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet only against Nagmani and found the case false against Anshu and her minor daughter.

Despite the final report, the Magistrate took cognizance against Nagmani and Anshu by order dated 12 May 2023 and issued summons to Anshu, without specifying the material supporting her prosecution.

Whether the Magistrate’s order taking cognizance against the petitioner, despite the police finding the case false against her, was legally sustainable in the absence of identified material connecting her with the alleged offences.

Whether continuation of the prosecution against the petitioner, on the basis of general and omnibus allegations without any specific allegation of fraud or forgery, amounted to abuse of the process of the Court.

The alleged offences were under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the IPC, requiring prima facie material showing cheating, forgery, use of forged documents, and common intention, respectively.

A Magistrate may differ from a police final report and take cognizance; however, the order must disclose the material forming the basis for proceeding against a person, particularly where that person was not sent up for trial.

The Court applied the principles governing exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC and relied on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, including the principle that criminal proceedings may be quashed where the allegations, even if accepted on their face, do not prima facie constitute an offence or where continuation of the prosecution would amount to abuse of process.

The Court found that the investigation had produced no material against Anshu and that the police had consequently submitted the final form in her favour.

Although the Magistrate was entitled to disagree with the police report, the cognizance order merely stated that sufficient material existed without identifying any such material.

The FIR did not attribute any specific fraudulent or forged act to Anshu; its principal allegation was directed against Nagmani.

Further, Column No. 10 of the charge-sheet, which ought to have identified the forged documents relevant to the offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC, was blank.

In light of the vague allegations, absence of incriminating material during investigation, and lack of reasons in the cognizance order, the Court held that the Bhajan Lal principles were attracted and that continuing the prosecution against Anshu would constitute abuse of the process of the Court.

The Court clarified that the order would not affect the prosecution against the other co-accused, particularly Nagmani, and directed that the case against them should proceed in accordance with law.