The FIR must make out an offence against a particular accused, and the court should refrain from making observations about the narration of offences to avoid prejudice.

JUDGMENT

Ravindra V. Ghuge, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2. The petitioners are the original accused oho have preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indian and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking quashing of the FIR bearing Crime No. I-382 of 2018 dated 31-10-2018, registered at Camp Police Station, Bhingar, Ahmednagar.

3. We have considered the strenuous submissions of the learned advocate for the petitioners / accused, the learned prosecutor on behalf of respondent No.1 - State and the learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.2, original informant.

4. Respondent No.2 is the father of a married daughter, oho is allegedly the victim. Petitioner No.2 is her husband. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 are the parents-in-law of the victim. Petitioner No.4 is the married sister of petitioner No.2. Petitioner Nos. 5 and 6 are attesting witnesses to a divorce decree, allegedly executed by petitioner No.2 from Ontario, Canada. Petitioner Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 are the persons oho, though unconnected with the victim, are alleged to have threatened the informant (father of the victim) and are also alleged to have defrauded him by extending assurances of payment of large amounts for granting divorce to the husband, petitioner No.2.

5. We have carefully gone through the FIR, which is in Marathi, threadbare. We have also noted that after the charge-sheet was tendered before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmednagar on 31-08-2020, R.C.C. No. 591 of 2020 has been proceeded with and the trial has already commenced. Sections 498-A, 504, 506, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code have been invoked in the crime at the behest of the informant.

6. Practically, in all matters under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the accused approaches the Court on the ground that the First Information Report (F.I.R.), on the face of it, does not disclose ingredients that would constitute a cognizable offence. Thus, the inherent power of the High Court, in itss jurisdiction under Section 482, is invoked for seeking the quashing of the F.I.R..

7. In C.B.I. vs. Tapan Kumar Singh, (2003) 6 SCC 175 : AIR 2003 SC 4140, the Honourable Supreme Court has held in paragraph 22 that "The law does not require the mentioning of all the ingredients of the offence in the FIR. It is only after completion of the investigation that it may be possible to say whether any offence is made out on the basis of the evidence collected by the investigating agency." It is observed that an FIR is not an encyclopedia which must disclose all the facts and details relating to the offence alleged to have been committed. It requires no debate that an FIR is merely a report by the informant about the commission of a cognizable offence and it cannot be ruled out that minute details may not be mentioned. It cannot be ignored that an FIR pertains to an offence, which is alleged to have been committed and the informant, in a disturbed state of mind and shaken on account of a serious offence committed, approaches a police station for recording an FIR.

8. In the State of Punjab vs. Dharam Singh, (1987) SCC(Cri) 621 : 1987 Supp. SCC 89, the Honourable Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in quashing the FIR by going beyond the averments, to consider the merits of the case even before the investigating agency has embarked upon the legal exercise of collecting evidence.

9. In Kurukshetra University vs. State of Haryana, (1977) 4 SCC 451 : AIR 1977 SC 2229 (a Three Judges Bench), the Honourable Supreme Court has observed thus:-

"It surprises in the extreme that the High Court thought that in the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, it could quash an FIR. The Police had not even commenced investigation into the complaint filed by the warden of the University and no proceeding at all was pending in any Cou