Withdrawn complaints pursued without bona fides constitute abuse of process warranting closure of ensuing proceedings.

The petitioner challenged the Rajasthan High Court’s dismissal of his petitions under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking quashing of FIR No. 35/2025 registered at Police Station Railway Colony, Kota City, and FIR No. 104/2025 registered at Police Station Gumanpura, Kota City.

The petitioner contended that the FIRs were maliciously instituted against him and his associate after they complained of alleged human trafficking involving twin children and influential persons.

The police subsequently treated the allegations against the petitioner and his associate as a mistake of fact and proposed submission of a final closure report.

In the connected matter, the petitioner challenged orders of the High Court refusing to permit continuation of complaint cases after the original complainant had withdrawn the complaints and the Trial Court had closed the proceedings.

The Supreme Court noted that the complaint related to alleged trafficking of twin siblings, but had been lodged nearly six years after the birth certificate relied upon was issued, and that the petitioner was not himself the complainant or signatory to the complaints.

Whether the FIRs ought to be quashed under the principles governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction, particularly where the petitioner alleged mala fides and abuse of process, but the police had proposed a final closure report?

Whether the complaint proceedings concerning alleged human trafficking could continue after the original complainant withdrew the complaints and the Trial Court closed the matters?

Whether the petitioner’s challenge to the withdrawal and closure of the complaint proceedings was bona fide or constituted an abuse of the process of law?

The Court considered the petitioner’s reliance on Section 528 BNSS, which preserves the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

It also considered the principles stated in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, particularly the categories concerning quashing of criminal proceedings where allegations are manifestly attended with mala fides or proceedings are maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive.

The Court further applied the general principle that criminal proceedings must be pursued bona fide and that courts may decline relief where the proceedings themselves amount to an abuse of process.

The Court did not accept the petitioner’s submission that the BNSS categorically prohibited withdrawal of the complaints; instead, it upheld the closure of the proceedings on the facts and circumstances before it.

In relation to the FIRs, the Supreme Court declined to examine the underlying factual controversy or determine whether the FIRs were in fact malicious.

It reasoned that the police had already opined that the allegations were founded on a mistake of fact and had proposed a final report; the concerned court was therefore required to deal with that report strictly in accordance with law.

Since the High Court’s refusal to quash the FIRs did not prejudice the petitioner, there was no sufficient reason for Supreme Court interference.

In relation to the complaint cases, the Court found the petitioner’s bona fides doubtful.

These circumstances suggested a targeted approach rather than a genuinely public-spirited complaint.

The Court also considered significant that the petitioner was not the complainant or signatory to any complaint and had participated only by seeking expeditious disposal of the complaint proceedings.

In that factual setting, it found no infirmity in the High Court’s orders and held that all action taken pursuant to the complaints, including consequential orders, stood closed.

In SLP (Criminal) Diary No. 34226/2026, the Court found no merit in the challenge to the withdrawal and closure of the complaint proceedings, held that the proceedings pursued by the petitioner amounted to an abuse of process, and confirmed that all actions arising from the complaints stood closed.

Although costs of ₹25,000 were initially imposed, the Court, upon reconsideration, refrained from saddling the petitioner with costs “to temper justice with mercy”.