Summary
The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings against an appellant named in an abduction FIR because the complainant’s and prosecutrix’s evidence made no allegation against him. The main accused had already been acquitted, and the High Court had refused the appellant’s quashing petition. Continuing proceedings without any evidence connecting this appellant to the alleged acts was an abuse of process. The relief rested on that evidentiary absence, rather than marriage itself eliminating an offence.
Issues
- Whether proceedings could continue against the appellant when the complainant’s and prosecutrix’s recorded evidence contained no allegation against him.
Provisions considered
- Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The Court held that the High Court should have quashed the proceedings where the recorded evidence disclosed no allegation or evidence against this appellant and continuation constituted abuse of process. (¶¶ 1, 7, 9, 10, 11)
Held
- The complainant and prosecutrix directed their evidence to the main accused and made no allegation against the appellant. There was no evidence supporting continuation of his prosecution. (¶¶ 4, 5, 7, 9, 10)
- On this record, the proceedings against the appellant were untenable and the High Court erred in refusing relief. The decision did not establish a general rule that subsequent marriage extinguishes an alleged abduction offence. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11)
Result
Appeal allowed; the High Court order set aside and proceedings consequent to the FIR and charge sheet against the appellant quashed.