Legal proceedings should not continue when the basis for them ceases to exist, as it constitutes an abuse of process.

JUDGEMENT

1. By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the criminal complaint being C.R. No. II – 100 of 2012 registered with J.P. Road Police Station, Vadodara City under Sections 498 and 506(2) of IPC and all consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof.

2. Learned advocate Mr. Abhiraj Trivedi for the petitioner submitted that the averments made in the complaint itself suggests that in the year 2010, the wife of the petitioner herein was serving as Commission Agent with Bajaj Life Insurance Company, during which time, the petitioner herein was serving on a senior managerial post in the said Company. He submitted that on a delusional belief and with the intention to sever relationship with his wife, the respondent No.2 herein filed the impugned complaint against the petitioner by making him a scapegoat. He submitted that the petitioner herein was having business relations with the wife of respondent No.2 herein, as she used to procure business for the Company while serving as a Commission Agent. Moreover, the petitioner is a married man and is having two daughters. Hence, the impugned complaint against the petitioner is an abuse and misuse of the process of law and deserves to be quashed and set aside.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Amit Chaudhary, who appears on behalf of the newly added party-respondent, i.e. wife of respondent No.2-original complainant, submitted that respondent No.2 and his wife have dissolved their marriage with mutual consent in the year 2017 vide judgment and order passed by the Family Court, Vadodara in Family (H.M.P.) No. 598 of 2014 dated 01.07.2015. He produced a copy of the divorce decree, which is taken on record.

4. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner and learned advocate for the newly added party-respondent No.3. In the impugned complaint, the respondent-complainant has invoked the provisions of Sections 498 and 506(2) of IPC against the petitioner herein. The said provisions were invoked on account of the alleged relationship that the petitioner had with the wife of respondent-complainant. It is a matter of record that the respondent-complainant and his wife have got divorced with mutual consent on 01.07.2015. Now, when the very basis for the filing of the impugned complaint, i.e. the marriage between respondent No.2- complainant and his wife does not exist, no purpose would be served in continuing the prosecution in the form of impugned complaint against the petitioner.

5. In the case of State of Haryana V. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604, the Apex Court made the following observations:- “8.1. In the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , the following categories of cases are given by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guide in myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:

(a) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;

(b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of S