The Supreme Court has asserted that a complaint founded on the identical incident as a pre-existing FIR, instituted after the FIR has ripened into a chargesheet, and deliberately suppressing the existence of both, bears the hallmark of a retaliatory counterblast and warrants quashing. The Court cautioned that a dispute essentially civil in character must not be permitted to be clothed as a criminal offence; the criminal process is not a substitute for civil remedies, and a criminal court must exercise great caution before issuing process to ensure a civil matter has not been given the cloak of a criminal offence.
Taking the cumulative effect of the unexplained delay in instituting the complaint, the deliberate suppression of the antecedent FIR and chargesheet, the counter-blast character of the complaint, and the essentially civil nature of the underlying land dispute, the Apex Court held that the case falls squarely within categories of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335], where allegations even at face value do not prima facie constitute an offence, where allegations are absurd and inherently improbable, and where the proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance.
The Apex Court emphasised that the continuation of the complaint against the appellants would be nothing but an abuse of the process of the court. The impugned order of the Allahabad High Court was set aside, and the complaint, summoning order, and all consequent proceedings stood quashed, with a clarification that the judgment shall not influence the merits of the original FIR, the connected chargesheet, or the civil dispute between the parties.
A Two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih reiterated that the inherent power under Section 528 BNSS (formerly Section 482 CrPC) is exercisable to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice, as laid down in the seven illustrative categories in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335]. The Court emphasised that while this power must be exercised sparingly, it does not require the court to shut its eyes to a manifestly abusive proceeding. Where mala fide or oblique motive is alleged, the court is not confined to the four corners of the complaint and owes a duty to examine it with care.
The Court observed that a dispute essentially civil in character must not be permitted to be clothed as a criminal offence, and cautioned that a criminal court must exercise great caution before issuing process to ensure a civil matter has not been given the cloak of a criminal offence. On the aspect of delay, the Court reiterated that deliberate and unexplained delay in setting the criminal law in motion is a circumstance that may itself justify quashing, as a frustrated litigant who failed before the civil court may initiate criminal proceedings merely to harass the other side. The time-factor between institution of civil and criminal remedies is an indicator of whether the criminal proceeding is genuine or a mere pressure tactic.
On suppression, the Court referred to lied on Anukul Singh v. State of U.P. [2025 INSC 1153], holding that a complaint which suppresses a pre-existing FIR lodged by the accused in respect of the same incident, and is instituted after such FIR has ripened into a chargesheet, bears the hallmark of a retaliatory counterblast. The suppression of a material antecedent proceeding is itself indicative of the want of bona fides.
Applying these principles to the facts, the Court noted that the chronology was undisputed: the FIR was lodged on the very day of the incident, a chargesheet followed within weeks, and the complaint came only in 2021 with no explanation for the delay. The complaint deliberately suppressed the antecedent FIR and chargesheet. The dispute was essentially civil, rooted in a land quarrel previously agitated even by way of a public interest litigation. The summoning of the entire family, including three women, upon a solitary and belated version did not reflect the careful application of mind that issuance of process demands.
Briefly, a long-standing land dispute between two branches of a family in Village Sohni, District Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh, formed the backdrop of this case. On Nov 09, 2020, the day of the incident, Appellant No. 4 (Sunil Maurya) lodged FIR at Police Station Kerakat against the respondent-complainant (Shankar Maurya) and three others under Sections 188, 323, 504, 506 and 342 IPC, alleging assault and wrongful confinement. A chargesheet followed on 30.11.2020, and the trial commenced thereafter.
It was only in the year 2021 that the respondent-complainant instituted a complaint case, levelling counter-allegations of assault and house-trespass against the entire appellant-family, eight members, including three women (Anita Maurya, Meera Maurya and Saroja Devi). Crucially, the complaint did not disclose the pre-existing FIR lodged by the appellants’ side on the very day of the incident, nor the chargesheet that had already been filed.
The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur, after recording statements under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC, summoned the Appellants 4 to 8 under Sections 323, 354 and 452 IPC, and the three women under Sections 323 and 452 IPC. The appellants’ criminal revision was dismissed and the Allahabad High Court, by its order dated Jan 21, 2026, declined to quash the complaint and summoning order, holding that the contentions raised disputed questions of fact which could not be adjudicated at that stage.
