#Abuse of Process

The Madras High Court invoked Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction to strike off a civil suit where the plaintiff suppressed prior Supreme Court eviction decrees and claimed title through a tenant who fabricated settlement and sale deeds in breach of court undertakings. The ruling affirms that supervisory power extends to aborting proceedings founded on fraud and deliberate concealment of adverse judicial orders.

The court held that generic accusations of 'inciting the husband' without particulars of cruelty or harassment fail to make out a prima facie case under Section 498A IPC against in-laws. The ruling reinforces that matrimonial disputes cannot be weaponised to rope in relatives through boilerplate FIRs, protecting elderly parents and distant relatives from vexatious prosecution.

The Calcutta High Court held that generalized allegations without specific instances cannot sustain a Section 498A IPC prosecution and that relatives living separately cannot be implicated absent concrete evidence. The ruling clarifies the evidentiary threshold for matrimonial cruelty and shields distant family members from baseless implications.

Gujarat HC quashed FIR against POA holders, ruling vague allegations lacking specific criminal intent amount to abuse of process under Sec 482 CrPC. It shields parties in property deals from baseless prosecutions and stresses need for concrete allegations.

The Gujarat HC held that post-warranty defects cannot ground criminal cheating or breach of trust charges, quashing the FIR as an abuse of process under Sec 482 CrPC to shield businesses from mala fide complaints in civil disputes.

The court held that prosecuting a company officer without arraying the company as accused and without showing a nomination under Section 49 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 constitutes an abuse of process. This ruling clarifies vicarious liability requirements under the Act and protects officers from unwarranted prosecution.

NCLAT rules that a personal guarantor filing a Section 94 application after a SARFAESI possession notice has been issued, and enjoying a two-year interim moratorium, constitutes abuse of process to frustrate secured creditor recovery. The ruling clarifies that the IBC moratorium for guarantors does not override SARFAESI enforcement once possession proceedings have commenced.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that when parties settle a Section 138 NI Act complaint, the related proclamation and FIR under Section 290 BNS must be dismissed, resulting in the FIR's quash. This prevents further criminal prosecution once the principal dispute is resolved, safeguarding litigants who reach settlement.

Supreme Court set aside Kerala HC’s order, holding that a valid settlement agreement extinguishing monetary claims prevents any later complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and that filing such a complaint is an abuse of process. Settled spouses are thus shielded from re-litigation.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a police officer, holding that Section 58 of the NDPS Act imposes liability only when the officer personally engages in the vexatious entry, search, seizure or arrest. This limits police accountability to those directly involved, not merely supervising officials.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court set aside an FIR registered under Sec 209 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita after the complainant withdrew the underlying Sec 138 Negotiable Instruments Act complaint, deeming further prosecution an abuse of process. It also vacated the proclamation of the petitioner as a proclaimed person. The ruling protects parties where a civil settlement leads to withdrawal of the original NI Act complaint.

The Supreme Court set aside the dowry-death charges against a BSF officer, holding that a service certificate proving his posting elsewhere and the acquittal of his relatives removed any prima facie case, making continuation an abuse of process under Section 482. This clarifies that alibi evidence and related acquittals can justify dismissal of criminal complaints at the highest court.

The Gujarat High Court set aside the FIR and charge-sheet, ruling that a civil property dispute cannot be transformed into a criminal case, and invoked its power under Section 482 CrPC to curb abuse of process. This safeguards subsequent land purchasers and others from criminal prosecution over purely civil title matters.

The Jammu & Kashmir High Court set aside FIR 252/2021, ruling that the rent disagreement between Vision Public School trustees was a civil matter lacking the fraudulent intent essential for a Section 420 offence, thereby barring criminal prosecution and curbing abuse of process. This safeguards parties in commercial lease disputes from unwarranted criminal charges.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that a proclamation under Section 174-A IPC cannot be issued against a person already in judicial custody, and therefore quashed the FIR as an abuse of process. The decision prevents authorities from pursuing proclamation proceedings against custodial prisoners, safeguarding their right to due process.