SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Ashish Dave – Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan And Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No(s). 1169 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 19369 of 2025)
Decided On : 27-02-2026
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 308(2), 318(4) and 351(2) [Corresponding to Sections 384, 420, and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860] – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 [Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023] – Allegations of unauthorised financial dealings and abuse of authority – FIR – Allegations set out in FIR are absolutely vague, and no prudent person can perceive therefrom that same discloses necessary ingredients of any cognizable offence – Complaint, ex facie, discloses no material warranting registration of First Information Report – Exhaustive narrative set out in complaint is nothing but a fictional story woven meticulously on vague and speculative allegations so as to give it a cloak of grave criminal offences attributed to appellant – However, complaint read in its entirety is bereft of even a semblance of allegation laying foundation for these allegations – Even though FIR need not be an encyclopaedia, it must contain basic facts and allegations constituting commission of cognizable offence(s) – In present case, since complainant-company was a reputed media house, onus was greater upon it to clearly set out relevant details and material particulars prima facie establishing alleged criminal acts attributed to appellant – Pertinent plea raised by appellant in quashing petition regarding FIR being bereft of particulars and based on vague and uncertain allegations merited consideration by High Court – Allegation that appellant misrepresented his authority by using name of complainant-company to engage with external businesses in an unethical or coercive manner may give rise to civil liability, but not those under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Police authorities ought to have exercised option available under Section 173(3) of BNSS – Criminal proceedings quashed. (Paras 6, 13, 14, 16, 19, 25, 28 and 29)
Facts of the case:
Facts giving rise to instant appeal by special leave present a glaring example of an influential media house managing to get an FIR registered against one of its own executives after a fall-out with management and that too with vague, speculative, and baseless allegations.
Findings of Court:
Impugned order dated 26th November, 2025 passed by High Court is set aside. As a consequence, FIR No.257 of 2025 dated 4th September, 2025 registered at Police Station Ashok Nagar, District Jaipur City (South), Rajasthan and all proceedings sought to be taken against appellant in pursuance thereof, are quashed.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Key Points: - The Supreme Court held that while an FIR need not be an encyclopaedia, it must contain basic facts and allegations constituting the commission of a cognizable offence. (!) (!) (!) - Allegations of misrepresenting authority to engage in unethical business dealings may give rise to civil liability but do not constitute offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 without specific details. (!) (!) - The Court quashed the FIR because the allegations were vague, speculative, and lacked particulars, amounting to a fictional story rather than a prima facie case. (!) (!) (!) - Police authorities are required to exercise the option under Section 173(3) of the BNSS to conduct a preliminary inquiry when allegations are vague or inherently improbable. (!) (!) (!) - The High Court erred in dismissing the quashing petition by failing to consider that the FIR was bereft of particulars and based on uncertain allegations. (!) (!) (!) - The Court emphasized that for offences punishable between three to seven years, police must ascertain if a prima facie case exists before registering an FIR. (!) (!) (!) - The impugned order dated 26th November, 2025, rejecting the quashing petition is set aside, and all proceedings against the appellant are quashed. (!) (!) - The complainant-company, being a reputed media house, was under a greater onus to clearly set out relevant details prima facie establishing alleged criminal acts. (!) - The Court noted that the police acted with unusual expediency to register the FIR without verifying allegations or conducting a preliminary inquiry. (!) (!) - The case falls under the categories in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal where the allegations are so absurd that no prudent person can conclude there is ground for proceeding. (!) (!)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background and context of the fir (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. vagueness of allegations in the fir (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. arguments by the appellant regarding fir (Para 10 , 12) |
| 4. lack of evidence supporting fir (Para 13 , 14 , 16) |
| 5. procedural irregularities in fir registration (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 21) |
| 6. preliminary inquiry requirements (Para 22 , 24 , 25) |
| 7. misuse of the law (Para 26 , 28) |
| 8. conclusion and quashing of fir (Para 29 , 30 , 31) |
ORDER
Mehta, J.
1. Heard.
2. Leave granted.
3. Facts giving rise to the instant appeal by special leave present a glaring example of an influential media house managing to get an FIR registered against one of its own executives after a fall-out with the management and that too with vague, speculative, and baseless allegations.
4. The appellant before us, Ashish Dave, was d serving as the Channel Head of a well-known media house by name of Zee Rajasthan and Zee 24 Ghanta (West Bengal). The said media house is owned by a company named Zee Media Corporation Limited (ZMCL)1 [Hereinafter, referred to as the “complainant-company”]. It appears that relations between the media house and the appellant herein ran into choppy waters in the year 2025, pursuant to which the authorised representative of the company approached Police Station Ashok Nagar, District Jaipur City (South), Rajasthan with a complaint, which straightaway came to be registered as FIR No.257 of 2025 dated 4th September, 2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 308 (2), 318(4) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 20232 [For short, ‘ BNS ’.] (corresponding to Sections 384 , 420, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603 [For short, ‘ IPC ’] respectively).
5. The complaint is extracted hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference: -
(1) FIR – Even though FIR need not be an encyclopaedia, it must contain basic facts and allegations constituting commission of cognizable offence(s).(2) Allegation of engaging with external businesse....
The court reaffirmed that an FIR can only be quashed in rare cases where allegations lack substance, emphasizing the duty to allow investigations into claims of criminal conduct.
(1) Merely because on same set of facts with same allegations and averments earlier complaint is filed, there is no bar to lodge FIR with police station with same allegations and averments. However, ....
Set of acts or omissions may constitute offences under different enactments and where there are two distinct offences disclosed, made up of different ingredients, punishment in both would be permissi....
Point of Law : Dismissal of petition to Quash of FIR – Commission of cognizable offence and pendency of investigation – cannot be quashed.
A Magistrate has the discretion to direct a police investigation when a complaint discloses a cognizable offence, provided procedural requirements are met. Criminal proceedings should not be quashed ....
The main legal point established is the mandatory registration of FIR if the information discloses a cognizable offence and the need for a preliminary inquiry in certain cases. The court emphasized t....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.