Abuse of process in counter blast complaint led to quashing where essential ingredients of breach of trust and forgery were missing.

A private complaint alleging criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery and use of forged documents was found unsustainable because the allegations, even if taken at face value, did not set out the essential ingredients of those offences. The court noted the admitted entrustment of signed cheques, the pending Section 138 proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the absence of material showing discharge of liability or proof of forgery. The surrounding circumstances suggested animosity and supported the inference that the complaint was filed as a counter blast to the cheque dishonour proceedings. The prosecution was therefore treated as an abuse of process and the complaint was quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the private complaint alleging offences of criminal breach of trust, forgery and use of forged documents disclosed the requisite ingredients and could be sustained in view of the admitted entrustment of signed cheques, the pending proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the surrounding circumstances showing mala fides.

Analysis: The allegations were examined against the admitted facts that signed cheques had been entrusted, that the complainant had initiated and faced proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and that there was no material to show discharge of liability or proof of forgery. The complaint and sworn statements did not disclose factual particulars sufficient to establish criminal breach of trust, cheating, or forgery. The surrounding circumstances indicated animosity between the parties and supported the inference that the complaint was instituted as a counter blast to the cheque dishonour proceedings. In such circumstances, continuation of the prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

Conclusion: The complaint was held to be unsustainable and was quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the allegations, taken at face value, do not disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences and the materials show that the criminal process has been invoked as a counter blast with mala fide intent, the proceedings are liable to be quashed as an abuse of process of law.

---