Supreme Court quashes criminal proceedings against one director, holds no prima facie case under Sections 354/506 IPC

A bench of Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol heard an appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 1093 of 2021 which challenged the Allahabad High Court’s refusal to quash a chargesheet and related proceedings in an FIR registered under Sections 354 and 506 IPC. The appeal concerned whether the High Court erred in declining to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the prosecution insofar as it related to the appellant, Naresh Aneja.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned High Court order and quashed criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 1074 of 2019 as they related to the present appellant. The Court emphasised the limited scope of interference under Section 482 CrPC, noting that "when considering an application u/s 482 CrPC, the court cannot conduct a mini-trial but instead was to be satisfied that prima facie the offences as alleged were made out." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “Turning to the facts of the instant case, keeping in view the contents of the FIR, the statement in the final report of the investigating officer, and the statement u/s 164 CrPC of the complainant, we were of the view that even prima facie the ingredients as referred to supra, were not met. The record was silent with respect to the use of any force, apart from bald assertions of mental and physical discomfort caused to the complainant by the appellant... As evidenced by the annexures referred to above... no direct allegation nor any evidence in support thereof could be found attributing intent to the appellant. It could not be said, then, that a case u/s 354 IPC was made out against the appellant.” The Court clarified that its observations were restricted to Naresh Aneja and did not affect proceedings against R.K. Aneja.

Background The dispute arose from a commercial association in M/s LAJ-IDS Exports Pvt. Ltd., where the appellant and R.K. Aneja were directors and a complainant, Pooja Tankha, held a minority share. The complainant filed a complaint dated 20 July 2019 alleging inappropriate physical contact by R.K. Aneja and threats; she later filed an application under Section 156(3) CrPC before the Chief Judicial Magistrate alleging non-registration and non-investigation. A preliminary enquiry report by the District Magistrate found a management and financial dispute between the parties and noted that the allegations of harassment “cannot be certainly stated.” The CJM directed registration and FIR No. 1074 of 2019 under Sections 354 and 506 IPC was registered on 4 September 2019. Shortly thereafter the appellant and his brother lodged criminal allegations against the complainant.

The appellant and co-accused sought quashing of the proceedings in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC; the High Court refused the prayer, observing that only malicious or mala fide institution warranted quashing and that disputed questions of fact could not be resolved on such an application. The appellant then obtained leave from the Supreme Court.

Before this Court, the appellant contended that the record demonstrated the allegations arose from company-management disputes, that the preliminary enquiry did not prima facie disclose offences under Sections 354 and 506, and that the complaint was motivated. The complainant maintained that statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC and the chargesheet showed prima facie offences by the appellant; she relied on precedents that required denial of quashing where prima facie material existed.

The Supreme Court examined the statutory ingredients of Sections 354 and 506 IPC, prior precedents on “modesty” and criminal intimidation, and the admissibility and weight of statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC. The Court concluded that the materials on record, including the FIR, interim enquiry report and chargesheet, did not disclose prima facie commission of the offences against the appellant. The Court relied on established principles that quashing is permissible where allegations, even taken at face value, do not prima facie constitute the offences or where proceedings would be an abuse of process. The appeal was allowed; proceedings were quashed against Naresh Aneja and the High Court order dated 8 January 2021 was set aside. The Court left the case against R.K. Aneja unaffected and closed pending applications.

Case Details: Case No.: SLP (Crl.) No. 1093 of 2021 (Criminal Appeal registered as 2025 INSC 19) Case Title: Naresh Aneja @ Naresh Kumar Aneja v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. R. Basanth, Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Ms. Shobha Gupta, Senior Counsel