The court cannot quash an FIR if the allegations, even if assumed to be true, make out a cognizable offence, except in cases where the allegations are so absurd or inherently improbable that no prudent person can conclude there is sufficient ground for proceeding.

With the help of this writ petition, made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, Kailash Rai, has sought for, inter alia, quashing of the First Informant Report (for short ‘FIR’), which has given rise to Bhagwanpur P.S. Case No. 52 of 2015, under Sections 363/365/366A/120B of the Indian Penal Code, wherein not only the petitioner, Kailash Rai, but three others, namely, Madan Rai, Rajendra Rai and Dharmendra Rai, have been made accused.

2. We have heard Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, learned Counsel, for the petitioner, and Mr. Pravin Kumar Verma, learned Assistant Counsel to Standing Counsel No. 26, for the respondent Nos.1 to 6.

3. The informant’s case, as unfolded by the First Information Report, based on his fardbeyan, dated 01.04.2015, is that informant’s daughter, aged about 17 years, had gone to her maternal grandfather’s house, at village-Rasulpur Turki, and she was kidnapped from there on the night of 15.03.2015. It is also alleged in the First Information Report that calls, trying to entice and threaten, were received on the informant’s mobile phone from Mobile Nos. 9006666990 and 9835271999 and, during the course of search, it transpired that the said mobile phones were used by accused Kailash Rai. In the First Information Report, it is further alleged that pursuant to a criminal conspiracy, accused Kailash Rai, Madan Rai, Rajendra Rai and Dharmendra Rai kidnapped the informant’s daughter with ill-intention.

4. Treating the said fardbeyan as First Information Report, Bhagwanpur P.S. Case No.52 of 2015, under Sections 363/365/366A/120B of the Indian Penal Code, was registered against the accused aforementioned.

5. The petitioner seeks quashing of the First Information Report on the ground that whole case against him is a result of conspiracy hatched by the informant himself inasmuch as informant’s daughter and the petitioner had been in love with each other. However, while the petitioner is a Yadav by caste, informant’s daughter is Rajput. It is the petitioner’s case when the informant came to learn that his daughter was going to marry the petitioner, she was badly tortured and assaulted by her parents, who also attempted to kill her. Consequently, claims the petitioner, the informant’s daughter, who is major, voluntarily left her house and performed her marriage in a temple as well as before the Marriage officer, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand, on 14.07.2015, and since then, the couple had been living as husband and wife. Thus, the case, which has been lodged by the informant against the petitioner and others as co-accused, is wholly false. In this regard, apprehending threat to her life, the informant’s daughter has already informed respondent No.6, who is the Investigating Officer of the case aforementioned, seeking protection, but the local police, with the connivance of the informant, is not taking any action.

6. In effect, thus, the petitioner has approached this Court to get the First Information Report quashed on the ground that this Court should hold the contents of the First Information Report as false and concocted and this, in turn, would mean that this Court should not only to hold the informant and the contents of information, lodged with the police as unreliable, but also unworthy of trust. Is this permissible in law?

7. Before entering into the merit of the petitioner's case, it is necessary to point out that the law, with regard to the quashing of criminal complaint or First Information Report, is no longer res integra. A catena of judicial decisions has settled the position of law on this aspect of the matter. I may refer to the case of R.P. Kapoor v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, wherein the question, which arose for consideration, was whether a First Information Report can be quashed under Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court held, on the facts before it, that no case for quashing of the proceeding was made out; Gajendragadkar, J. speaking for