Quashing of criminal proceedings for lack of offence ingredients where website and payment allegations showed no deception or dishonest intent.

Allegations based on a website describing a consultancy unit as a sister concern, together with payments to consultants from the company account, did not disclose the essential ingredients of forgery, cheating, criminal breach-related offences, or offences under the Information Technology Act. The website content itself indicated that the consultancy unit formed part of the same corporate entity, and no separate receipt of money in the appellant's name or in the unit's name was shown. In the absence of deception, wrongful gain, false document, or dishonest intent, continuation of the prosecution was treated as an abuse of process and the criminal proceedings were quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings were liable to be quashed as the allegations, even if taken at face value, did not disclose the offences alleged and the prosecution amounted to an abuse of process.

Analysis: The allegations rested on the creation of a website describing a consultancy unit as a sister concern of the company and on payments made to consultants from the company account. The contents of the website itself showed that the consultancy unit was part of the same corporate entity and there was no attempt to project it as an independent concern. No amount was received by the appellant in his own name or separately in the name of the unit, and no dishonest or fraudulent intent was made out. In the absence of deception, wrongful gain, false document, or any act satisfying the ingredients of forgery, forgery for cheating, criminal breach-related allegations, or the offences under the Information Technology Act, the continuation of the prosecution was held to be unjustified. The case also fell within the recognised categories warranting exercise of inherent powers to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

Conclusion: The prosecution was quashed and the criminal proceedings were held not maintainable against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was allowed because the complaint did not disclose a sustainable criminal case and the proceedings were found to be an abuse of the judicial process.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the uncontroverted allegations do not disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences and the proceedings appear malicious or inherently improbable, the court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the prosecution to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

---