Quashing of FIR for mala fide counterblast upheld where criminal process appeared aimed at avoiding cheque proceedings.

Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC may be exercised to quash a criminal proceeding that is manifestly mala fide and instituted as a counterblast. The Court assessed the complaint's timing and surrounding circumstances, found it was lodged immediately after the complainant learned of cheque presentation, and treated the prosecution as an apparent attempt to pre-empt proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act. On that basis, the FIR and consequential investigation were held liable to be quashed as an abuse of process and proceedings brought with ulterior motive.

---

---

Issues: Whether the FIR and investigation deserved to be quashed under the inherent jurisdiction on the ground that the criminal proceeding was a counterblast and was instituted with mala fide intent and an ulterior motive.

Analysis: The petition invoked Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to prevent abuse of the process of law. The material on record was assessed in the light of the complaint's own timing and the surrounding circumstances. The Court found that the complaint was lodged immediately after the complainant became aware of the cheque presentation and that the prosecution was, on the face of it, intended to pre-empt or avoid proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act. Applying the principle that inherent jurisdiction may be exercised at the threshold where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and instituted for wreaking vengeance, the Court treated the case as falling within the category of proceedings initiated with ulterior motive.

Conclusion: The FIR and the consequential investigation were held to be liable to be quashed as an abuse of process and a counterblast, and the petition succeeded.

---