Vengeance-driven cross-complaints rooted in family disputes may be quashed as an abuse of process.

The petitions arose from cross-complaints between family members following an incident on 17 April 2024, in the context of a property dispute.

In the first case, the son-in-law alleged that his father-in-law and brother-in-law assaulted and threatened him; proceedings under Sections 323 and 506 IPC followed.

In the second, the father-in-law complained against his son-in-law and daughter, leading to proceedings under Sections 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC.

The petitioners sought quashing under Section 482 CrPC, contending that the complaints were retaliatory and arose from the family dispute.

The State and complainants opposed quashing, relying on the investigation materials, including witness statements and wound certificates.

1. Whether the cross-complaints and resulting criminal proceedings disclosed a prima facie basis to proceed against the petitioners for the alleged IPC offences

2. Whether, in the circumstances, continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of court and warrant quashing under Section 482 CrPC

Section 482 CrPC preserves the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

Under the categories in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, proceedings may be quashed, among other circumstances, where the allegations do not constitute an offence, are inherently improbable, or are manifestly mala fide and instituted to wreak vengeance.

Relying on Mohammed Ali v. State of U.P., (2023) 15 SCC 488, the Court stated that where mala fides or vengeance are alleged, the Court may examine the surrounding circumstances and investigation materials, rather than the complaint alone.

State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy, (2004) 6 SCC 522, permits consideration of materials that manifestly fail to support the accusation, while cautioning that the High Court should not undertake a trial-level assessment of evidentiary reliability.

The Court found that the parties were family members embroiled in a dispute and that the complaints reflected mutual hostility, with allegations of trespass, assault and intimidation made against each other.

It noted that neither side had been admitted to hospital, the wound certificates recorded no injuries beyond tenderness, and the witnesses cited in the charge sheets were relatives of the parties.

Considering these circumstances together, the Court concluded that the proceedings appeared to have arisen from vengeance connected with the family dispute and fell within the principles permitting quashing to prevent abuse of process.

It quashed the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C. No. 18051/2024, arising from Crime No. 202/2024, for offences under Sections 323 and 506 IPC, and the proceedings in Crime No. 206/2024 for offences under Sections 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC.