Summary
On this record, the FIR arose from a delayed and retaliatory attempt to use criminal proceedings to recover money paid in an unlawful job-procurement arrangement. The Court held that the prosecution should not continue and quashed the proceedings.
Issues
- Whether the FIR and resulting prosecution were an abuse of process, given the prior inquiry, unexplained delay and apparent recovery purpose.
Provisions considered
- Article 226, Constitution of IndiaThe Court considered the appellant’s request to quash the FIR and proceedings and granted relief on the particular facts, including unexplained delay and coercive recovery purpose. (¶ 6-17)
- Section 173(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The State relied on the prospect of challenging a later police report, but the Court concluded that the prosecution itself should not continue on this record. (¶¶ 9, 16-17)
Held
- The complainant knew of the earlier inquiry, which had recorded her allegation that she paid the appellant for a job, yet waited more than a year after that inquiry and about three years after the alleged transaction to lodge the FIR. The delay was unexplained. (¶ 11-12)
- On the facts, the prosecution was being used to exert pressure to recover money arising from an unlawful job-procurement arrangement rather than to pursue criminal punishment. It should not continue. (¶ 13-16)
Result
The appeal was allowed, the High Court order was set aside, and the entire proceedings arising from FIR No. 248 of 2022 were quashed.