1 CGHC010142712024 2026:CGHC:37070-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1531 of 2024 1 - Atul Rathore S/o Shri Mahendra Rathore Aged About 35 Years R/o Sainagar, Uslapur, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 – XYZ 3 - Shailendra Lahre S/o Hiraram Lahre Aged About 35 Years R/o Sainagar, Uslapur, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Shashi Lahre W/o Late Shri Hiraram Lahre Aged About 57 Years R/o Sainagar, Uslapur, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Abhishek Rathore S/o Shri Mahendra Rathore Aged About 36 Years R/o Sant Marg, Gandhi Nagar, Indore (M.P.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home (Police), Mahanadi Bhawan, Caipital Complex, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director General Of Police Police Head Quarter (Phq), Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Arvind Kujur Indian Police Service Officer, Currently Posted As Commandant, 3rd Battalion, Amleshwar, Durg, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Station House Officer Police Station - Maudhapara, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - The Station House Officer Police Station - Kumhari, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh. 6 - The Station House Officer Police Station - Bhilai 3 (Old Bhilai), District - Durg, Chhattisgarh. BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2026.08.22 10:27:01 +0530 2 7 - The Station House Officer Police Station Jarhagaon, District - Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 8 - The Station House Officer Police Station - City Kotwali, District - Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 9 - The Station House Officer Police Station - City Kotwali, District - Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 10 - Piyush Tiwari S/o Basant Tiwari Aged About 33 Years R/o New Colony, Tikrapara, Police Station - Tikrapara, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Aman Saxena, Advocate For Respondents No. 1, 2 and 4 to 9 For Respondent No.3 For Respondent No.10 : : : Mr.Ashish Shukla, Additional Advocate General Ms.Smriti Ekka, Advocate Mr.Raza Ali, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 19.08.2026 1. Heard Mr.Aman Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr.Ashish Shukla, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondents No.1, 2 and 4 to 9, Ms.Smriti Ekka, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 and Mr.Raza Ali, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.10. 2. By way of this petition under Section 482 CrPC the petitioners have prayed for following relief:- 3 “1. It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records relating of the petitioners for its kind perusal. the case 2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the Order of framing charges passed in Crime No. 41/2021 that is falsely registered against the petitioners annexed herewith as Annexure P/1. 3. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire criminal proceedings including chargesheet No. 61/2021 along with supplementary chargesheet No. 129/2022 initiated against the petitioners arising from FIR No. 41/2021 dated 06.01.2021 annexed herewith as Annexures P/2 (Colly.) as being malafide and abuse of the process of law. 4. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no.1 and 2 to conduct disciplinary enquiry against respondent 3 as per applicable law for malicious abuse of law and weaponizing it against innocent citizens and take action to set up example for the rest of the police force which abuses the law. 5. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to compensate the petitioners as well as award costs of litigation as the present false and fabricated report has been lodged by the police officers against them, due to which they are facing mental and physical harassment. 6. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief/reliefs in favour of the petitioners, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of 4 the costs to the petitioners.” 3. The Petitioners' case, in substance, is that the present prosecution forms part of a larger series of criminal proceedings initiated against the Petitioners and their family members pursuant to a personal dispute involving Petitioner No. 2, Priyanka Lahre, and Respondent No. 10, Piyush Tiwari. According to the Petitioners, Petitioner No. 2 came into contact with Respondent No. 10 in the year 2017, when he represented himself as an unmarried police officer and proposed marriage to her. A relationship thereafter developed between them. It is alleged that Respondent No. 10 subsequently refused to marry Petitioner No. 2 and that she later came to know that he was already married. 4. The Petitioners state that Petitioner No. 2 thereafter ended her relationship with Respondent No. 10 and subsequently married Petitioner No. 1. According to the Petitioners, after the marriage, Respondent No. 10 continued to pressurise Petitioner No. 2 to maintain the relationship with him and to leave her husband. It is alleged that, when Petitioner No. 2 refused to accede to such demands, Respondent No. 10 initiated criminal proceedings against her and her family members. 5. According to the Petitioners, the first such criminal proceeding was Crime No. 107/2019 registered at Police Station Moudhapara, Raipur. Thereafter, a number of other criminal cases came to be registered against Petitioner No. 2, her husband and other 5 members of her family in the districts of Durg, Mungeli and Bemetara. 6. The Petitioners contend that Respondent No. 10, Piyush Tiwari, was closely associated with Respondent No. 3, Arvind Kujur, who was holding senior police positions at the relevant time. It is alleged that Respondent No. 3 abused his official position and used the police machinery to facilitate the registration and prosecution of successive criminal cases against the Petitioners and their family members. 7. The Petitioners further rely upon the fact that, during the relevant period, Respondent No. 3 was posted as AIG, CID, PHQ, Raipur, and thereafter as Superintendent of Police, Mungeli, and Superintendent of Police, Bemetara. According to the Petitioners, several of the criminal cases were registered in those jurisdictions during the period when Respondent No. 3 was holding the aforesaid posts. 8. The Petitioners had earlier approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 793/2022, challenging the series of criminal proceedings collectively. By order dated 31.03.2022, this Court did not consider it appropriate to examine all the separate criminal proceedings in a single petition and granted liberty to the Petitioners to challenge the individual proceedings separately. The present petition has consequently been filed pursuant to the liberty so granted. 6 9. The present petition specifically concerns Crime No. 14/2021 registered at Police Station Jarhagaon, District Mungeli, on 06.01.2021. The said FIR was lodged by Respondent No. 10, Piyush Tiwari, and allegations were made against the Petitioners and other co-accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 420, 120-B and 212 of the Indian Penal Code. 10.The prosecution case, as emerging from the FIR and the chargesheet, is disputed by the Petitioners. According to them, the allegations are false and fabricated and have been levelled only with a view to harass them and to exert pressure upon Petitioner No. 2 and her family in connection with the underlying personal dispute. 11.The Petitioners submit that the present FIR cannot be examined in isolation. It is stated to be one of eight criminal proceedings instituted against the Petitioners and their family members. In several of those cases, Piyush Tiwari himself was the complainant, while in others the complainants were persons stated to be closely associated with him, including his wife, driver and friends. 12.The Petitioners further submit that substantially the same members of Lahre family were repeatedly implicated in the successive criminal proceedings. According to them, the repeated implication of the same persons, the chronology of the FIRs, the arrest of the Petitioners in successive cases, and the geographical 7 correlation between registration of the cases and the postings of Respondent No. 3 disclose a continuing pattern of harassment. 13.The Petitioners further rely upon the subsequent inquiry conducted by a Special Investigation Team constituted by the police authorities. According to the State's affidavit filed in the connected proceedings, the SIT conducted an inquiry into the series of criminal cases registered against the Petitioners and submitted its report. The Inspector General of Police, Raipur Range, thereafter submitted a summary dated 30.06.2024 to the Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh. 14.The affidavit of the Additional Superintendent of Police (Rural), Raipur, who was also the Officer-in-Charge of the connected case, records that the SIT inquiry found that the eight offences registered against the Petitioners were fabricated and also recorded the complicity of Respondent No. 3 in the episode concerning registration of offences against the Petitioners in the concerned districts. 15.The State's affidavit further records that, in respect of Crime No. 107/2019, the SIT found the Investigating Officer to have acted negligently and that disciplinary proceedings were directed against him. The affidavit also records that the Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh, submitted a report to the State Government recommending disciplinary proceedings against Respondent No. 3. 8 16.The Petitioners submit that the subsequent official inquiry is of considerable significance because the findings relied upon by them do not emanate merely from the Petitioners themselves but from an inquiry conducted by the police authorities and placed on record by the State. 17.The Petitioners further submit that several of the connected criminal proceedings have subsequently culminated in closure reports, while proceedings arising out of certain other FIRs have been stayed by this Court. They contend that these subsequent developments, when considered cumulatively with the SIT report and the official action taken against Respondent No. 3, materially corroborate their allegation of mala fide and abuse of the criminal process. 18.It is also the case of the Petitioners that Piyush Tiwari was subsequently acquitted by this Court in CRA No. 1294/2024 by judgment dated 21.04.2025. According to the Petitioners, this subsequent development forms part of the overall background and subsequent history of the dispute, though it is fairly submitted that the said acquittal by itself is not determinative of the present petition. 19.The Petitioners accordingly contend that permitting the proceedings arising out of Crime No. 14/2021 to continue would amount to permitting the criminal process to be used as an 9 instrument of harassment and vengeance and would result in abuse of the process of law. 19.Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the present petition deserves to be allowed as the prosecution arising out of Crime No. 14/2021 is manifestly attended with mala fide and forms part of a continuing course of malicious prosecution instituted with an ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance upon the Petitioners and their family members. Learned counsel submits that the present FIR cannot be considered as an isolated proceeding. It is one of a series of eight criminal cases registered against substantially the same set of persons over a period of nearly three years. The first case was registered immediately after the matrimonial dispute involving Petitioner No. 2 and Respondent No. 10, and thereafter successive cases were registered in different districts. 20.Learned counsel submits that the identity of the complainants in the different cases is also significant. While Respondent No. 10 himself was the complainant in several cases, subsequent cases were lodged by persons closely associated with him. It is submitted that the repeated initiation of criminal proceedings by such persons, coupled with the repeated implication of the same members of the Petitioners' family, cannot be regarded as a mere coincidence. Learned counsel, however, fairly submits that the relationship of a complainant with Respondent No. 10, by itself, may not establish that the complaint is false. It is submitted that 10 the relevance of such relationship lies in its cumulative effect when considered along with the chronology of the proceedings, the repeated implication of the same persons, the arrest pattern, the official postings of Respondent No. 3 and, most importantly, the subsequent SIT findings. Learned counsel submits that the record discloses repeated arrests of the Petitioners in successive criminal proceedings. In certain connected cases, the accused were even shown to have been arrested from jail while they were already in custody in another case. According to learned counsel, the effect of such conduct was that whenever the Petitioners were on the verge of obtaining their liberty in one case, another criminal proceeding was used to frustrate their release. 21.Learned counsel further submits that the registration of the cases bears a striking correlation with the official postings of Respondent No. 3, Arvind Kujur. It is submitted that several cases were registered in Mungeli during the period when Respondent No. 3 was posted as Superintendent of Police, Mungeli, while other cases were registered in jurisdictions where he held senior police positions. Learned counsel fairly submits that the mere coincidence of an officer's posting with the registration of an FIR cannot by itself establish mala fide. However, it is contended that the importance of the said circumstance arises from the subsequent SIT inquiry, which, according to the State's own affidavit, recorded complicity of Respondent No. 3 in the episode concerning registration of the cases against the Petitioners. 11 Learned counsel submits that the subsequent SIT report dated 30.06.2024 is the most significant circumstance in the present case. It is submitted that the State itself has placed the said material on record through the affidavit of the Additional Superintendent of Police (Rural), Raipur. Learned counsel draws attention to paragraph 4 of the said affidavit, wherein it is recorded that, on the basis of the SIT report, the Inspector General of Police, Raipur Range, submitted a summary to the Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh, indicating that all eight offences registered against the Petitioners were fabricated and recording the complicity of Respondent No. 3 in the episode concerning registration of offences against the Petitioners. 22.Learned counsel submits that, in respect of the connected Crime No. 107/2019, the SIT specifically found negligence on the part of the Investigating Officer and disciplinary proceedings were directed against him. According to learned counsel, this circumstance demonstrates that the investigation conducted in the connected cases was itself found to be seriously deficient by the competent police authorities. Learned counsel submits that the State cannot, on the one hand, place on record an official inquiry recording that the series of cases was fabricated and, on the other hand, contend that the Petitioners must nevertheless undergo a full-fledged trial in one of those very proceedings. 23.Learned counsel further submits that several of the connected cases have resulted in closure reports, while proceedings in other 12 cases have been stayed by this Court. Though such developments may not individually establish the falsity of the present FIR, they are relevant surrounding circumstances demonstrating the extraordinary course of the prosecution. Learned counsel places reliance upon the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, particularly the category relating to proceedings which are manifestly attended with mala fide and/or maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance due to private or personal grudge. Learned counsel submits that the present case falls squarely within the aforesaid category. The Petitioners are not inviting the Court to conduct a mini-trial or to determine disputed questions of fact. Rather, the Petitioners rely upon the admitted chronology, official documents, the State's own affidavit, the SIT findings, the subsequent disciplinary proceedings and the status of the connected criminal cases. 24.Learned counsel further submits that the power under Section 482 CrPC is intended precisely to prevent abuse of the process of law. Where subsequent official material demonstrates that the very foundation of the prosecution has been seriously questioned by the State's own authorities, compelling the Petitioners to face a criminal trial would itself amount to an abuse of process. Learned counsel submits that, although the present petition concerns Crime No. 14/2021 alone, the circumstances in which the said FIR 13 came to be registered cannot be divorced from the larger chain of events. The present FIR was lodged during the period when Respondent No. 3 was posted as Superintendent of Police, Mungeli, and forms part of the very series of cases which were subsequently examined by the SIT. Learned counsel therefore prays that Crime No. 14/2021, Chargesheet No. 61/2021, Supplementary Chargesheet No. 129/2022, the order framing charges and all consequential criminal proceedings pending before the competent Court be quashed. 36.Per contra, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 10 submits that the allegations of mala fide, personal vengeance, collusion and misuse of police machinery are denied. It is submitted that the Petitioners are attempting to connect several independent criminal cases merely because some of the accused persons happen to be common. Learned counsel submits that each criminal proceeding has to be examined on the basis of its own allegations and the material collected during investigation. The existence of several FIRs against the same persons cannot, by itself, establish that all such proceedings were initiated pursuant to a common design. 37.Learned counsel submits that the fact that Respondent No. 10 was the complainant in some cases and that persons known to him were complainants in other cases does not establish that such persons acted at his instance or as his proxies. No cogent material has been shown to establish that Respondent No. 10 14 instructed, instigated, financed or controlled the lodging of the subsequent complaints. Learned counsel submits that the repeated implication of the same accused persons is also not sufficient to establish mala fide. If the allegations in different cases involve the same persons, their names may legitimately occur in more than one FIR. The Petitioners cannot convert such repetition into proof of conspiracy or malicious prosecution. 38.With regard to the allegation concerning the arrest of the Petitioners from jail, learned counsel submits that an accused already in custody in one case may, subject to law, be arrested in connection with another criminal case. Such arrest cannot automatically be characterised as an attempt to frustrate bail or as an abuse of the arrest machinery. Learned counsel further submits that the official postings of Respondent No. 3 cannot, by themselves, establish collusion between Respondent No. 3 and Respondent No. 10. The mere fact that certain FIRs were registered in districts where Respondent No. 3 was posted does not establish that the FIRs were lodged at his instance or that the police machinery was misused. Learned counsel submits that the subsequent SIT inquiry also cannot be treated as a binding adjudication against Respondent No. 10. It is submitted that Respondent No. 10 was in custody when the inquiry was conducted and was not afforded an effective opportunity to participate in the inquiry or controvert the allegations made against him. 15 39.Learned counsel submits that, therefore, any adverse observation made in the SIT report against Respondent No. 10 cannot be treated as conclusive proof of mala fide or fabrication. At the highest, the SIT report may constitute material whose evidentiary value would have to be considered in appropriate proceedings. Learned counsel further submits that a closure report in another criminal case does not establish that the present case is false. Likewise, an order staying proceedings in another case is an interim order and cannot be treated as a finding that the allegations therein are fabricated. Learned counsel submits that the principles laid down in Bhajan Lal (supra) do not mean that every allegation of personal enmity or mala fide warrants quashing of criminal proceedings. The power under Section 482 CrPC is extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly. 40.Learned counsel submits that, in the present case, investigation has already been completed, chargesheet has been filed and the learned Magistrate has framed charges. The allegations and the material collected during investigation are matters which can appropriately be tested during trial. Learned counsel therefore submits that the Petitioners have failed to establish any exceptional circumstance warranting interference under Section 482 CrPC and prays for dismissal of the petition. 48.We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered the rival submissions and perused the pleadings, the documents 16 placed on record and the affidavit filed on behalf of the State in the connected proceedings. 49.Before proceeding to examine the merits, it is necessary to notice the nature and scope of the jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court is intended to prevent abuse of the process of any Court and to secure the ends of justice. The power is extraordinary and is required to be exercised sparingly and with due circumspection. Ordinarily, this Court would not undertake a detailed appreciation of evidence or adjudicate disputed questions of fact while exercising such jurisdiction. 50.At the same time, the mere filing of a chargesheet or framing of charges does not create an absolute bar against exercise of inherent jurisdiction. Where the material placed before the Court discloses circumstances which demonstrate that continuation of the criminal proceedings would itself result in abuse of process or manifest injustice, the Court is competent to intervene notwithstanding the filing of a chargesheet. 51.The principles governing the exercise of such jurisdiction have been authoritatively considered by the Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal (supra). One of the illustrative categories recognised therein is where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused due to private and personal grudge. 17 52.In the present case, the Petitioners have placed considerable reliance upon the fact that Crime No. 14/2021 forms part of a series of criminal proceedings instituted against substantially the same members of the Petitioners' family. 53.Ordinarily, the mere existence of several criminal cases would not establish mala fide. Likewise, the fact that some accused persons are common in different cases or that the complainants are known to one another cannot, by itself, furnish a ground for quashing a criminal proceeding. However, the present case has to be examined in the light of the peculiar subsequent developments which have emerged on record. Of particular significance is the affidavit filed by the Additional Superintendent of Police (Rural), Raipur, who was also the Officer-in-Charge of the connected case, in which the State has placed on record the proceedings and findings of the Special Investigation Team. 54.The affidavit specifically records that, pursuant to complaints made by Sushila Rathore and others, a Special Investigation Team was constituted by the competent police authorities to inquire into the series of offences registered against the Petitioners. The affidavit further records that, on 30.06.2024, on the basis of the report submitted by the SIT, the Inspector General of Police, Raipur Range, submitted a summary to the Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh, indicating that all eight offences registered against the Petitioners were fabricated and recording the complicity of Respondent No. 3, Arvind Kujur, in the episode 18 relating to registration of offences against the Petitioners in the concerned districts. 55.This Court is conscious that the SIT report is not a judicial adjudication and that its findings cannot, by themselves, be treated as conclusive determination of criminal liability. Nevertheless, the importance of the said material lies in the fact that the inquiry was conducted by the police authorities themselves and the findings have been placed before this Court by the State. 56.The said circumstance materially distinguishes the present case from an ordinary case in which an accused merely alleges mala fide on the basis of personal enmity. Here, the allegation of misuse of police machinery has subsequently been examined by the police authorities and has resulted in official findings and consequential administrative action. 57.The State's affidavit further records that, in respect of Crime No. 107/2019, the SIT found the Investigating Officer to have acted negligently and, pursuant to the directions of the Inspector General of Police, Raipur Range dated 29.06.2024, disciplinary proceedings were directed against him. 58.The Court is not, in the present proceedings, recording a final finding of misconduct against the said Investigating Officer. The disciplinary proceedings shall take their own course. However, the fact that the investigation of one of the criminal cases forming part 19 of the same series was found sufficiently deficient by the competent police authorities to warrant disciplinary action is a relevant circumstance while examining the allegation of abuse of process. The affidavit further records that the Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh, made a report to the State Government for institution of disciplinary proceedings against Respondent No. 3, Arvind Kujur, vide letter dated 08.07.2024. 59.The Petitioners have also placed on record the chronology of the criminal proceedings and the official postings of Respondent No. 3. It is not necessary for this Court to hold that the coincidence of postings and registration of FIRs, by itself, establishes mala fide. Such a conclusion would not be legally justified. However, the relevance of the postings assumes significance when considered with the subsequent official finding recording the complicity of Respondent No. 3 and the recommendation for disciplinary proceedings against him. Thus, the allegation concerning misuse of police machinery has not remained merely an assertion of the Petitioners. 60.The Court also takes note of the fact that several connected criminal proceedings have subsequently culminated in closure reports, while proceedings in certain other cases have been stayed by this Court. These circumstances cannot individually be treated as proof that Crime No. 14/2021 is false. Nevertheless, they constitute relevant surrounding circumstances when considered along with the SIT inquiry and the State's own affidavit. 20 61.Another relevant circumstance is that Respondent No. 10 himself was the complainant in several of the criminal cases, while in subsequent cases the complainants included persons stated to be closely associated with him. As noticed earlier, this circumstance by itself cannot establish that such complainants acted at his instance. The Court, therefore, does not hold that the wife, driver, friend or any other person connected with Respondent No. 10 could not have independently lodged a genuine complaint. Nor does the Court adjudicate upon the correctness of the allegations in those independent proceedings. 62.The relevance of the said circumstance lies in its cumulative effect. The present FIR is part of a sequence in which substantially the same members of the Petitioners' family were repeatedly implicated, the complainants in different proceedings had a discernible connection with Respondent No. 10, and the subsequent official inquiry recorded findings adverse to the manner in which the series of cases had been initiated and investigated. 63.The objection of Respondent No. 10 that he did not receive an effective opportunity before the SIT is also noted. However, the Court is not treating the SIT report as a binding adjudication against Respondent No. 10. It is being considered only as subsequent official material relevant to the question whether continuation of the prosecution would amount to abuse of process. 21 64.The Court's conclusion is also not founded solely upon the SIT report. The report is one circumstance amongst several circumstances emerging from the record. The cumulative circumstances include the registration of multiple criminal proceedings against substantially the same persons, the subsequent status of several of those proceedings, the findings of the SIT, the finding of negligence in the investigation of the connected case, the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against police officials and the official finding concerning the role of Respondent No. 3. 65.The present petition concerns Crime No. 14/2021. The said FIR was registered at Police Station Jarhagaon, District Mungeli, during the period when Respondent No. 3 was posted as Superintendent of Police, Mungeli. The State's affidavit itself records the broader findings concerning the series of cases registered in the concerned districts. 66.The Court is conscious that the subsequent inquiry took place several years after registration of the FIR. The mere passage of time does not render the subsequent inquiry irrelevant. The inquiry was specifically directed towards examining the series of criminal cases which constitute the factual background of the present petition. Its findings therefore have a direct bearing upon the manner in which the prosecution came to be initiated and pursued. 22 67.It is equally significant that the material has not been produced by the Petitioners alone. The State has itself placed the affidavit and the relevant inquiry material on record. Consequently, the Court is not required to accept the allegation of fabrication merely on the basis of an assertion made by the accused. 68.The Court is not oblivious to the submission of Respondent No. 10 that the sufficiency of the evidence collected during investigation should ordinarily be tested at trial. That proposition is undoubtedly well settled. However, the present case does not rest upon an argument that the evidence is insufficient or that particular witnesses are unreliable. 69.The Petitioners' case is that the very continuation of the criminal process, in the peculiar circumstances which have subsequently emerged, would amount to an abuse of process. The question, therefore, is not whether this Court should conduct a mini-trial, but whether the cumulative circumstances appearing from the official record are sufficient to warrant exercise of inherent jurisdiction. 70.The Court reiterates that no single circumstance, viewed in isolation, would necessarily justify quashing. The existence of several FIRs, repeated implication of the same accused, relationship between complainants, police postings, closure reports or even the SIT report, considered individually, may not be conclusive. 23 71.It is the cumulative effect which assumes significance. The record discloses a series of criminal proceedings involving substantially the same family; subsequent closure reports and stay orders in a number of those proceedings; an official SIT inquiry into the series of cases; an official finding that the eight offences were fabricated; an official finding of negligence in the investigation of one of the connected cases; disciplinary proceedings against the concerned Investigating Officer; and official action initiated against Respondent No. 3. 72.These circumstances, taken cumulatively, materially support the Petitioners' contention that the criminal process was not being utilised merely for the ordinary investigation and prosecution of isolated offences, but that the Petitioners and their family members were subjected to a continuing course of criminal proceedings. 73.The inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC is intended precisely to prevent such abuse where the material before the Court demonstrates that continuation of the prosecution would result in manifest injustice. 74.This Court is, therefore, of the considered view that the present case falls within the principles recognised in Bhajan Lal (supra), particularly the category relating to proceedings manifestly attended with mala fide and proceedings instituted or continued 24 with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance due to private or personal grudge. 75.The conclusion reached by this Court is not based merely upon the allegations made by the Petitioners regarding personal enmity. It is based upon the subsequent official material placed on record by the State itself and the cumulative circumstances emerging from the entire record. 76.This Court also makes it clear that it is not expressing any opinion upon the merits of any other independent criminal proceeding. The findings recorded herein are confined to the question whether the prosecution arising out of Crime No. 14/2021 should be permitted to continue in the peculiar circumstances of the present case. 83.In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is satisfied that continuation of the criminal proceedings arising out of Crime No. 14/2021 registered at Police Station Jarhagaon, District Mungeli, would amount to an abuse of the process of law and that interference under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is warranted to secure the ends of justice. 84.Accordingly, the CRMP is allowed. Crime No. 14/2021 registered at Police Station Jarhagaon, District Mungeli, for offences punishable under Sections 420, 120-B and 212 of the Indian Penal Code, Chargesheet No. 61/2021 and Supplementary Chargesheet No. 129/2022 arising therefrom, the order framing 25 charges passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mungeli, and all consequential criminal proceedings arising out of the said Crime are hereby quashed / set aside. 85.So far as the other reliefs are concerned, the Petitioners are at liberty to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of their grievances, if so advised. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu