Vexatious criminal proceedings arising from a property dispute warrant quashing as an abuse of process.

The complainant’s marriage was solemnised with Reyaz Ahmad, who allegedly demanded an additional dowry of ₹1,00,000 and subjected her to cruelty.

The prosecution further alleged that, on 13 June 2010, the petitioner—described as a friend of the complainant’s husband—entered her room while her husband was intoxicated and attempted to rape her.

The petitioner contended that he had purchased the house and land from the complainant’s husband through a registered sale deed dated 14 June 2010, and that the criminal case was instituted on 19 June 2010, shortly thereafter.

He subsequently filed an eviction suit against the complainant and her husband, asserting that the prosecution was motivated by a property dispute and personal vendetta.

Initially, he sought quashing of the cognizance order dated 13 February 2018; by amendment, he also challenged the order dated 8 May 2025 framing charges under Sections 354, 504 and 34 of the IPC.

1. Whether the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, in light of the alleged property dispute, timing of the prosecution, and asserted mala fide motive, amounted to an abuse of the process of the Court warranting interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

2. Whether the orders taking cognizance and framing charges under Sections 354, 504 and 34 IPC could be quashed despite the proceedings having progressed to the stage of trial.

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to prevent abuse of the process of the Court and secure the ends of justice.

It relied on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, particularly Category 7 of paragraph 102, concerning criminal proceedings instituted maliciously or with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance.

Relying on Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083, the Court recognised the need for caution where persons connected with a matrimonial dispute are allegedly implicated with mala fide intent.

Under Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749, framing of charges requires the Trial Court to apply its judicial mind to the materials and determine whether sufficient grounds exist to proceed, although proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required at that stage.

The Court also relied on Md. Nausad Khan @ Md. Naushad Khan v. State of Bihar, 2024 (4) BLJ 202, for the proposition that Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be invoked even after commencement of trial where continuation of the proceedings would constitute an abuse of process or the allegations do not disclose an offence.

The charges challenged were under Sections 354, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The Court treated the petitioner’s purchase of the house and land from the informant’s husband on 14 June 2010, followed by institution of the criminal case within a week on 19 June 2010, as a material circumstance suggesting an underlying property dispute.

The subsequent eviction suit further supported the petitioner’s contention that the prosecution was connected with the parties’ competing claims over the property.

Applying the Bhajan Lal principles, the Court found the allegations against the petitioner to be vexatious and attended by mala fide considerations.

Although the case had progressed to the stage of framing charges, the Court held that the timing and circumstances justified intervention under Section 482 Cr.P.C., since allowing the proceedings to continue would amount to a gross abuse of the process of the Court.

It held that continuation of the prosecution was an abuse of the process of the Court in the circumstances of the case.

Accordingly, the orders dated 13 February 2018 and 8 May 2025 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IV, Bettiah, in T.R. No. 1365 of 2018 arising out of Shikarpur P.S. Case No. 194 of 2010, together with all consequential proceedings, were quashed insofar as they related to the petitioner.

The criminal miscellaneous application was allowed.