Reserved On: 18.08.2025 vs State Of H.P. & Others

Cr. MMO No. 785 of 2025 Reserved on: 18.08.2025

.

Date of Decision: 27.08.2025

Neeta ...Petitioner

Versus

State of H.P. & others ...Respondents

Coram

Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No.

For the petitioner : Mr. Janesh Gupta, Advocate.

For the respondents : Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General

for respondent No.1/State.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The petitioner has filed the present petition for

quashing of F.I.R. No. 85 of 2025 dated 07.05.2025, registered

for the commission of offences punishable under Sections

303(2) and 329(3) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023, at

Police Station Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P.

______________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:23 :::CIS 2 2025:HHC:28897

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present

petition are that the informant made a complaint to the police

.

stating that the wheat crop was stolen from his field on the

intervening night of 04.05.2025 and 05.05.2025. The informant

noticed this fact when he had visited the field in the morning.

He suspected Kamal Kant, Nirmla Devi and Neeta Devi (present

petitioner). They had earlier thrown stones into the informant's

land and had damaged the wheat crops growing on his land.

The police registered the F.I.R. and conducted the investigation.

3. Being aggrieved from the registration of the F.I.R.,

the petitioner has filed the present petition asserting that the

petitioner was not in town on the date of the incident. She went

to the holy shrine of Kedarnath, which is evident from the travel

tickets from Delhi to Rishikesh and the photographs taken at

the holy shrine. There is a dispute between the parties regarding

the agreement to sell dated 31.05.2024. The petitioner was

falsely implicated due to the dispute. The continuation of the

proceedings amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court.

Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed

and the F.I.R. and consequential proceedings arising out of the

said F.I.R. be quashed.

::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:23 :::CIS 3 2025:HHC:28897

4. I have heard Mr. Janesh Gupta, learned counsel for

the petitioner, and Mr. Jatinder K. Sharma, learned Additional

.

Advocate General, for the respondent No.1/State.

5. Mr. Janesh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner,

referred to various documents annexed to the petition to submit

that the petitioner had travelled to Kedarnath. Her photographs

were taken at Kedarnath. An agreement to sell was executed by

the informant with co-accused Manju Sharma, and possession

was delivered to her. The informant is not executing the sale

deed, and complaints were made against the informant

regarding this fact. Hence, it was prayed that the present

petition be allowed and F.I.R., as well as consequential

proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R., be quashed.

6. Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate

General for the respondent No.1/State, submitted that the

investigation is at the initial stage. The police would discharge

the petitioner in case she was not present on the spot. It is

premature to adjudicate the plea taken by the petitioner that she

was not present on the spot. Hence, he prayed that the present

petition be dismissed.

::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:23 :::CIS 4 2025:HHC:28897

7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions

made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

.

8. The law relating to quashing of criminal cases was

explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.N. John v. State of

U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 7 as under: -

"7. As far as the quashing of criminal cases is concerned, it is now more or less well settled as regards the

principles to be applied by the court. In this regard, one may refer to the decision of this Court in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein this Court has summarised some of the principles under

which FIR/complaints/criminal cases could be quashed

in the following words:

"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this

Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which

we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration

wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be

possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their

::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:23 :::CIS 5 2025:HHC:28897

entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any,

.

accompanying the FIR do not disclose a

cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate

within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose

the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not

constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is

permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent

person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against

the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned

Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an

::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:23 :::CIS 6 2025:HHC:28897

ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to a private and personal grudge." (emphasis added)

8. Of the aforesaid criteria, clause no. (1), (4) and (6)

.

would be of relevance to us in this case.

In clause (1), it has been mentioned that where the allegations made in the first information report or the

complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, then the FIR or the complaint can be quashed.

As per clause (4), where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order dated by the Magistrate

as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the CrPC, and in such a situation, the FIR can be quashed.

Similarly, as provided under clause (6), if there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the CrPC or the concerned Act under which the criminal

proceedings are instituted, such proceedings can be quashed."

9. This position was reiterated in Ajay Malik v. State of

Uttarakhand, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 185, wherein it was observed:

"8. It is well established that a High Court, in exercising its extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the CrPC,

may issue orders to prevent the abuse of court processes or to secure the ends of justice.

These inherent powers are neither controlled nor limited by any other statutory provision. However, given the broad and profound nature of this authority, the High Court must exercise it sparingly. The conditions for invoking such powers are embedded within Section 482 of the CrPC itself, allowing the High Court to act only in cases of clear abuse of process or

::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:23 :::CIS 7 2025:HHC:28897

where intervention is essential to uphold the ends of justice.

9. It is in this backdrop that this Court, over the course of several decades, has laid down the principles

.

and guidelines that High Courts must follow before

quashing criminal proceedings at the threshold, thereby pre-empting the Prosecution from building its case before the Trial Court. The grounds for quashing, inter

alia, contemplate the following situations : (i) the criminal complaint has been filed with mala fides; (ii) the FIR represents an abuse of the legal process; (iii) no prima facie offence is made out; (iv) the dispute is civil

in nature; (v.) the complaint contains vague and omnibus allegations; and (vi) the parties are willing to settle and compound the dispute amicably (State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335).

10. It was held in State of Karnataka v. L.

Muniswamy (1977) 2 SCC 699: 1977 SCC (Cri) 404 that the High

Court can quash the criminal proceedings if they amount to an

abuse of the process of the Court. It was observed at page 703:

"7. ... In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the

conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be

quashed. The saving of the High Court's inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose, which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests, and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of

::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:23 :::CIS 8 2025:HHC:28897

justice. The ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law, though justice has got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. The compelling necessity for making these observations is

.

that without a proper realisation of the object and

purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice, between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the

width and contours of that salient jurisdiction."

11. The term abuse of the process was explained in

Chandran Ratnaswami v. K.C. Palanisamy, (2013) 6 SCC 740:

(2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 447: 2013 SCC OnLine SC 450 at page 761:

33. The doctrine of abuse of process of court and the

remedy of refusal to allow the trial to proceed is a well-

established and recognised doctrine both by the English courts and courts in India. There are some established principles of law which bar the trial when there appears to be an abuse of the process of the court.

34. Lord Morris in Connelly v. Director of Public Prosecutions [1964 AC 1254 : (1964) 2 WLR 1145 : (1964) 2 All ER 401 (HL)], observed: (AC pp. 1301-02)

"There can be no doubt that a court which is endowed with a particular jurisdiction has powers which are

necessary to enable it to act effectively within such jurisdiction. ... A court must enjoy such powers in order to enforce its rules of practice and to suppress

any abuses of its process and to defeat any attempted thwarting of its process.

*** The power (which is inherent in a court's jurisdiction) to prevent abuses of its process and to control its procedure must in a criminal court include a power to safeguard an accused person from oppression or prejudice."

::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:23 :::CIS 9 2025:HHC:28897

In his separate pronouncement, Lord Delvin in the same case observed that where particular criminal proceedings constitute an abuse of process, the court is empowered to refuse to allow the indictment to proceed to trial.

.

35. In Hui Chi-ming v. R. [(1992) 1 AC 34 : (1991) 3 WLR 495

: (1991) 3 All ER 897 (PC)], the Privy Council defined the word "abuse of process" as something so unfair and wrong with the prosecution that the court should not

allow a prosecutor to proceed with what is, in all other respects, a perfectly supportable case.

36. In the leading case of R. v. Horseferry Road Magistrates' Court, ex p Bennett [(1994) 1 AC 42: (1993) 3 WLR 90: (1993)

3 All ER 138 (HL)], on the application of the abuse of process, the court confirms that an abuse of process justifying the stay of prosecution could arise in the following circumstances:

(i) where it would be impossible to give the accused a

fair trial; or

(ii) where it would amount to misuse/manipulation of the process because it offends the court's sense of

justice and propriety to be asked to try the accused in the circumstances of the particular case.

37. In R. v. Derby Crown Court, ex p Brooks [(1984) 80 Cr

App R 164 (DC)], Lord Chief Justice Ormrod stated:

"It may be an abuse of process if either (a) the

prosecution has manipulated or misused the process of the court to deprive the defendant of a protection provided by law or to take unfair advantage of a

technicality, or (b) on the balance of probability the defendant has been, or will be, prejudiced in the preparation of conduct of his defence by delay on the part of the prosecution which is unjustifiable."

38. Neill, L.J. in R. v. Beckford (Anthony) [(1996) 1 Cr App R 94: 1995 RTR 251 (CA)], observed that:

"The jurisdiction to stay can be exercised in many different circumstances. Nevertheless, two main

::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:23 :::CIS 10 2025:HHC:28897

strands can be detected in the authorities: (a) cases where the court concludes that the defendant cannot receive a fair trial; (b) cases where the court concludes that it would be unfair for the defendant to be tried."

.

What is unfair and wrong will be for the court to

determine on the individual facts of each case.

12. It was held in Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P., (2023) 15

SCC 488: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 950 that where the proceedings are

frivolous or vexatious, the Court owes a duty to quash them.

However, the Court cannot appreciate the material while

exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC. It was

observed at page 498:

13. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the

averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection, try to read in between the lines. The Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section

482CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution, need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered

to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. Take,

for instance, the case at hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances that the registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge, as alleged.

14. State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy [State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy, (2004) 6 SCC 522: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1805], a two-judge Bench of this Court elaborated on

::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:23 :::CIS 11 2025:HHC:28897

the types of materials the High Court can assess to quash an FIR. The Court drew a fine distinction between the consideration of materials that were tendered as evidence and the appreciation of such evidence. Only such material

.

that manifestly fails to prove the accusation in the FIR

can be considered for quashing an FIR. The Court held :

(Golconda Linga Swamy case [State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy, (2004) 6 SCC 522: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1805], SCC

p. 527, paras 5-7) "5. ... Authority of the court exists for the advancement of justice, and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the

court has power to prevent such abuse. It would be an abuse of the process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent the promotion of justice. In the exercise of its powers

court would be justified in quashing any proceeding if

it finds that initiation or continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of the court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice.

When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the

court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has

alleged and whether any offence is made out, even if the allegations are accepted in toto.

6. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab [R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, 1960 SCC OnLine SC 21: AIR 1960 SC 866], this Court summarised some categories of cases where

inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings : (SCC OnLine SC para 6)

(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance, e.g. want of sanction;

(ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at their face value and

::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:23 :::CIS 12 2025:HHC:28897

accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged;

(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence

.

adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.

7. In dealing with the last category, it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no

legal evidence or where there is evidence which is clearly inconsistent with the accusations made, and a case where there is legal evidence which, on appreciation, may or may not support the accusations. When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court

would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether, on a reasonable appreciation of it, the accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge. The

judicial process, no doubt, should not be an

instrument of oppression or needless harassment. The court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing

the process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the same time, the

section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about

its sudden death." (emphasis supplied)

13. It was held in Minu Kumari v. State of Bihar, (2006) 4

SCC 359: (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 310: 2006 SCC OnLine SC 417 that the

High Court should refrain from giving a prima facie opinion

when the facts are hazy and the evidence has not been collected.

It was observed at page 366:

::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:23 :::CIS 13 2025:HHC:28897

"20. As noted above, the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide, and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The court must be careful to see that its

.

decision in the exercise of this power is based on sound

principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain from

giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal,

are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary

jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage. [See Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary [(1992) 4 SCC 305: 1993

SCC (Cri) 36] and Raghubir Saran (Dr.) v. State of Bihar [(1964) 2 SCR 336: AIR 1964 SC 1 : (1964) 1 Cri LJ 1] .]

14. The present petition is to be decided as per the

parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

15. It was specifically mentioned in the F.I.R. that the

informant's wheat crop was stolen, and this fact was noticed on

the next morning. The name of the petitioner was mentioned as

a suspect. These allegations, prima facie, show the commission

of cognizable offences of theft and criminal trespass.

16. It was submitted that the informant had only

expressed a suspicion against the petitioner, which is not

sufficient to proceed further in the matter. This submission is

::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:23 :::CIS 14 2025:HHC:28897

only stated to be rejected. The police are to conduct the

investigation and find out the name of the thief. It is premature

.

to say that the petitioner would be arrayed as an accused simply

because her name was mentioned as a suspect. The police will

collect the material, and if anything is found against the

petitioner, only then will the charge sheet be filed against her.

17. It was submitted that the allegations in the F.I.R. are

false. The petitioner had gone to Rishikesh, which is evident

from the photographs and documents placed on record. This

submission will not help the petitioner. The Court exercising

inherent jurisdiction has to take the allegations in the FIR as

correct. This position was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Punit Beriwala v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine

SC 983, wherein it was observed: -

"29. It is settled law that the power of quashing a complaint/FIR should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, and while exercising this power, the

Court must believe the averments and allegations in the complaint to be true and correct. It has been repeatedly held that, save in exceptional cases where non- interference would result in a miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences. Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court should not be used routinely according to its whims or caprice."

::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:23 :::CIS 15 2025:HHC:28897

18. It was laid down in Maneesha Yadav v. State of U.P.,

2024 SCC OnLine SC 643, that the Court exercising inherent

.

jurisdiction to quash the FIR cannot go into the truthfulness or

otherwise of the allegations. It was observed: -

"13. As has already been observed hereinabove, the Court would not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint at the stage

of quashing of the proceedings under Section 482 Cr. P.C. However, the allegations made in the FIR/complaint, if taken at their face value, must disclose the commission of an offence and make out a case against the accused. At

the cost of repetition, in the present case, the allegations

made in the FIR/complaint, even if taken at their face value, do not disclose the commission of an offence or make out a case against the accused. We are of the considered view that the present case would fall under

Category-3 of the categories enumerated by this Court in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra).

14. We may gainfully refer to the observations of this

Court in the case of Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT of Delhi), Department of Home (2019) 11 SCC 706: 2018 INSC

1060:

"14. First, we would like to deal with the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for

Respondent 2 that once the charge sheet is filed, the petition for quashing of the FIR is untenable. We do not see any merit in this submission, keeping in mind the position of this Court in Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat [Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 7 SCC 59: (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 23]. In Joseph Salvaraj A. [Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 7 SCC 59: (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 23], this Court while deciding the question of whether the

::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:23 :::CIS 16 2025:HHC:28897

High Court could entertain the Section 482 petition for quashing of FIR when the charge-sheet was filed by the police during the pendency of the Section 482 petition, observed: (SCC p. 63, para 16)

.

"16. Thus, the general conspectus of the

various sections under which the appellant is being charged and is to be prosecuted would show that the same is not made out even

prima facie from the complainant's FIR. Even if the charge sheet had been filed, the learned Single Judge [Joesph Saivaraj A. v. State of Gujarat, 2007 SCC OnLine Guj 365] could have

still examined whether the offences alleged to have been committed by the appellant were prima facie made out from the complainant's FIR, charge-sheet, documents, etc. or not.

19. The petitioner has relied upon the photocopies of

various documents to submit that she had gone to Kedarnath.

All these documents are photocopies, and their authenticity has

not been established. It was rightly submitted on behalf of the

State that it is impermissible to rely upon the documents not

forming part of the charge-sheet, especially when the

authenticity of these documents is yet to be seen. It was laid

down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in MCD v. Ram Kishan

Rohtagi, (1983) 1 SCC 1: 1983 SCC (Cri) 115 that the proceedings

can be quashed on the face of the complaint and the papers

accompanying the same, no offence is constituted. It is not

permissible to add or subtract anything. It was observed:

::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:23 :::CIS 17 2025:HHC:28897

"10. It is, therefore, manifestly clear that proceedings against an accused in the initial stages can be quashed only if, on the face of the complaint or the papers accompanying the same, no offence is constituted. In

.

other words, the test is that taking the allegations and

the complaint as they are, without adding or subtracting anything, if no offence is made out, then the High Court will be justified in quashing the proceedings in exercise

of its powers under Section 482 of the present Code."

20. Madras High Court also held in Ganga Bai v. Shriram,

1990 SCC OnLine MP 213: ILR 1992 MP 964: 1991 Cri LJ 2018, that

the fresh evidence is not permissible or desirable in the

proceedings under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. It was observed:

"Proceedings under Section 482, Cr.P.C. cannot be allowed to be converted into a full-dressed trial. Shri Maheshwari filed a photostat copy of an order dated 28.7.1983, passed in Criminal Case No. 1005 of 1977, to

which the present petitioner was not a party. Fresh evidence at this stage is neither permissible nor desirable. The respondent, by filing this document, is virtually introducing additional evidence, which is not the object of

Section 482, Cr. P.C."

21. Andhra Pradesh High Court also took a similar view

in Bharat Metal Box Company Limited, Hyderabad and Others vs.

G. K. Strips Private Limited and another, 2004 STPL 43 AP, and

held:

"9. This Court can only look into the complaint and the documents filed along with it, and the sworn statements of the witnesses, if any, recorded. While judging the correctness of the proceedings, it cannot look into the

::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:23 :::CIS 18 2025:HHC:28897

documents, which were not filed before the lower Court. Section 482 Cr.PC debars the Court from looking into fresh documents, in view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. M.

.

Devendrappa and another, 2002 (1) Supreme 192. The

relevant portion of the said judgment reads as follows:

"The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears that on consideration of the allegations, in

the light of the statement made on oath of the complainant that the ingredients of the offence or offences are disclosed and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or

vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court. When information is lodged at the Police Station and an offence is registered, then the mala fides of rthe informant would be of secondary importance. It

is the material collected during the investigation and the evidence presented in Court which decides the fate of the accused person. The allegations of mala fides against the informant are of no

consequence and cannot by itself be the basis for quashing the proceedings".

22. A similar view was taken in Mahendra K.C. v. State of

Karnataka, (2022) 2 SCC 129: (2022) 1 SCC (Cri) 401, wherein it

was observed at page 142:

"16. ... the test to be applied is whether the allegations in the complaint, as they stand, without adding or detracting from the complaint, prima facie establish the ingredients of the offence alleged. At this stage, the High Court cannot test the veracity of the allegations, nor, for that matter, can it proceed in the manner that a judge conducting a trial would, based on the evidence collected during the course of the trial."

::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:23 :::CIS 19 2025:HHC:28897

23. This position was reiterated in Supriya Jain v. State of

Haryana, (2023) 7 SCC 711: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 765, wherein it

.

was held:

13. All these documents, which the petitioner seeks to rely on, if genuine, could be helpful for her defence at the

trial, but the same are not material at the stage of deciding whether quashing as prayed for by her before the High Court was warranted or not. We, therefore, see no reason to place any reliance on these three

documents.

24. A similar view was taken in Iveco Magirus

Brandschutztechnik GMBH v. Nirmal Kishore Bhartiya, (2024) 2

SCC 86: (2024) 1 SCC (Cri) 512: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1258, wherein

it was observed:

"63. Adverting to the aspect of the exercise of jurisdiction by the High Courts under Section 482CrPC, in a case where the offence of defamation is claimed by the accused to have not been committed based on any of the

Exceptions and a prayer for quashing is made, the law seems to be well settled that the High Courts can go no

further and enlarge the scope of inquiry if the accused seeks to rely on materials which were not there before the

Magistrate. This is based on the simple proposition that what the Magistrate could not do, the High Courts may not do. We may not be understood to undermine the High Courts' powers saved by Section 482CrPC; such powers are always available to be exercised ex debito justitiae, i.e. to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the High Courts exist. However, the tests laid down for quashing an FIR or criminal proceedings arising from a police report by the High Courts in the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482CrPC not being

::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:23 :::CIS 20 2025:HHC:28897

substantially different from the tests laid down for quashing a process issued under Section 204 read with Section 200, the High Courts on recording due satisfaction are empowered to interfere if on a reading of

.

the complaint, the substance of statements on oath of the

complainant and the witness, if any, and documentary evidence as produced, no offence is made out and that proceedings, if allowed to continue, would amount to an

abuse of the legal process. This, too, would be impermissible if the justice of a given case does not overwhelmingly so demand." (Emphasis supplied).

25. A perusal of these documents shows that the tickets

bearing the name Neeta, inter alia, have been filed. First, there is

insufficient material to connect the petitioner to Neeta

mentioned in the ticket. Secondly, there is no evidence that

Neeta had also travelled based on the ticket purchased in her

name. Reliance was also placed upon the photographs, but in

the absence of forensic analysis and identification of the

persons in the photographs, it is difficult to say that the

petitioner is the person mentioned in the photographs. These

are the matters of investigation, and it is impermissible for this

Court to record a finding regarding these matters at this stage.

Therefore, the F.I.R. cannot be quashed based on the material

annexed to the present petition.

26. It was submitted that there is a dispute between the

parties regarding the agreement to sell, and the F.I.R. was

::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:23 :::CIS 21 2025:HHC:28897

lodged because the co-accused had issued a notice asking the

informant to execute the sale deed. This submission will not

.

help the petitioner. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Ramveer Upadhyay v. State of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine SC

484, that a complaint cannot be quashed because it was initiated

due to enmity. It was observed:

"30. The fact that the complaint may have been initiated

because of a political vendetta is not in itself grounds for quashing the criminal proceedings, as observed by Bhagwati, CJ, in Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar (1987) 1 SCC 2884. It is a well-established proposition of

law that a criminal prosecution, if otherwise justified and

based upon adequate evidence, does not become vitiated on account of mala fides or political vendetta of the first informant or complainant. Though the view of Bhagwati, CJ, in Sheonandan Paswan (supra) was the minority view,

there was no difference of opinion with regard to this finding. To quote Krishna Iyer, J., in State of Punjab v.

Gurdial Singh (1980) 2 SCC 471, "If the use of power is for

the fulfilment of a legitimate object, the actuation or catalysation by malice is not legicidal."

Xxxx

39. In our considered opinion, criminal proceedings

cannot be nipped in the bud by the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. only because the complaint has been lodged by a political rival. It is possible that a false complaint may have been lodged at the behest of a political opponent. However, such a possibility would not justify interference under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings. As observed above, the possibility of retaliation on the part of the petitioners by the acts alleged, after the closure of

::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:23 :::CIS 22 2025:HHC:28897

the earlier criminal case, cannot be ruled out. The allegations in the complaint constitute an offence under the Atrocities Act. Whether the allegations are true or untrue would have to be decided in the trial. In the

.

exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the

Court does not examine the correctness of the allegations in a complaint except in exceptionally rare cases where it is patently clear that the allegations are frivolous or do

not disclose any offence. The Complaint Case No. 19/2018 is not such a case which should be quashed at the inception itself without further Trial. The High Court rightly dismissed the application under Section 482 of

the Cr.P.C."

27. Therefore, it is impermissible to quash the FIR on the

ground that it is mala fide.

28. The investigation is continuing, and there is no

reason to scuttle the same; therefore, the present petition fails

the same is dismissed, and so also, the miscellaneous

applications, if any.

29. The observations made herein before shall remain

confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing,

whatsoever, on the merits of the case.

(Rakesh Kainthla) 27 August 2025 th Judge (ravinder)

::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:27:23 :::CIS