Summary
A lessee sought quashing of criminal proceedings arising from a family dispute over the lessor’s inherited title. The complaint attributed fabrication of title documents to the lessor, without allegations showing the lessee’s knowledge or participation. Applying Bhajan Lal, the Court quashed proceedings against the lessee and upheld quashing for the petroleum company, its officers and attesting witnesses, without determining the disputed civil title.
Issues
- Whether the complaint disclosed a criminal case against the lessee or the other parties to the petrol-pump transaction.
Held
- Proceedings may be quashed where allegations taken at face value or uncontroverted allegations and supporting evidence disclose no offence against the particular accused. The lessee’s case fell within categories 1 and 3 of Bhajan Lal. (¶¶ 15, 16, 27)
- The complaint did not allege facts showing that the lessee knew of the competing inheritance claim or collusively fabricated the documents. A bare reference to conspiracy did not supply its manner or his participation; investigation also disclosed no conspiracy material. Continuing proceedings against him would abuse process. (¶¶ 18, 19, 23, 25, 27)
- The inheritance and document disputes were already involved in civil proceedings. The Court did not adjudicate title or genuineness, and found no basis to prosecute the petroleum company, its officers or persons implicated solely as attesting witnesses. The same parameters warranted relief for the lessee. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26)
Result
M. Srikanth’s appeal was allowed and proceedings against him in Crime 311/2010 were quashed. The complainant’s appeals against quashing for accused 5–9 were dismissed. The order did not quash proceedings against every accused or determine the pending civil claims.