Abuse of criminal process in cheque disputes can justify quashing where allegations are vague and process is mechanically issued.

A criminal complaint arising from disputed cheque transactions was found to be an abuse of process where the cheques bore the complainant's admitted signature, the dishonour memo showed insufficiency of funds, and the allegations of theft, forgery and fabricated liability documents were vague and unsupported. The process had been issued mechanically against multiple accused despite parallel civil disputes and pending cheque-related proceedings, giving the prosecution the character of a counterblast rather than a case fit for criminal trial. The proceedings and the order issuing process were therefore quashed and set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal complaint and the order issuing process deserved to be quashed as an abuse of process of law in exercise of writ and inherent jurisdiction.

Analysis: The complaint arose out of disputed cheque transactions and the rival parties had already initiated proceedings against each other. The cheques in question bore the complainant's undisputed signature, the dishonour memo showed insufficiency of funds, and the allegations of theft, forgery, and fabricated liability documents were found to be vague and unsupported by material. The process had been issued mechanically against multiple accused despite the civil disputes and the pending cheque-related proceedings, making the prosecution appear to be a counterblast rather than a case warranting criminal trial.

Conclusion: The proceedings and the order issuing process were liable to be quashed and set aside.

---