Abuse of process and lack of specific averment justified quashing prosecution against a director on undisputed facts.

Criminal proceedings against a director may be quashed where undisputed material shows he joined the company after the period of the alleged conspiracy to evade excise duty and the complaint contains no specific averment of his participation. A general assertion that directors were responsible for the company's business was insufficient on the facts. The High Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice, holding that continuation of the prosecution would cause needless harassment.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal process issued against a director could be quashed where the undisputed material showed that he had joined the company only after the period during which the alleged conspiracy to evade excise duty had been carried on, and there was no specific averment of his participation in the alleged conspiracy.

Analysis: The complaint contained only a general allegation that the directors were in charge of and responsible for the company's business. The undisputed position was that the petitioner became a director only on 19 November 1985, after the alleged acts of evasion and conspiracy during 1981 to 1984 and shortly before the raid on 9 December 1985. No statement of the petitioner had been recorded and the complaint did not state when or how he joined the alleged conspiracy. In such circumstances, continuation of the prosecution would amount to an abuse of process of court. The Court held that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, could be exercised to prevent needless harassment and to secure the ends of justice.

Conclusion: The process issued against the petitioner was quashed and the petition was allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the undisputed facts show that an accused was not connected with the alleged conspiracy during the relevant period and the complaint contains no specific averment of participation, the High Court may quash the proceedings in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

---