An FIR lacking essential elements of the alleged criminal offences is subject to quashing, preventing abuse of legal process.

ORAL ORDER

1. Though served, none appears for the respondent No.2.

2. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ”the Code”), the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside FIR being C.R.No.II - 94 of 2019 registered with Songadh Police Station, Bhavnagar for the offences punishable under Sections 507, 504 and 114 of the IPC as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the petitioners herein.

3. Seeking quashment of the impugned FIR, learned advocate for the petitioners would submit that the present FIR is nothing but an extension of an earlier FIR lodged by the complainant, and has been filed only with a view to harass the petitioners. He would further submit that, even if the allegations in the FIR are taken at their face value, the essential ingredients of Sections 507, 504 and 114 of the IPC are wholly absent. It is further submitted that the allegations levelled are omnibus and general in nature, bereft of any specific overt act attributable to the petitioners, and do not disclose any prima facie case so as to warrant continuation of criminal proceedings. Upon such submissions, learned advocate prays that the present petition be allowed and the impugned FIR be quashed.

4. Learned APP considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, prays to pass necessary orders.

5. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

6. Perusal of the contents of the FIR reveals that, so far as the offences punishable under Sections 507, 504 and 114 of the IPC are concerned, the essential ingredients thereof are conspicuously absent. For an offence under Section 504 IPC, there must be an intentional insult given with an intent to provoke breach of peace; however, the record does not indicate any such intentional insult, nor does it disclose that the complainant was provoked to commit breach of public peace or to indulge in any other offence. Likewise, for attracting Section 507 IPC, the act complained of must be ‘with intent to cause alarm to the complainant’; yet, on a plain reading of the FIR and the material on record, no such element is forthcoming. Section 114 IPC being only a provision fastening liability when an offence is proved to have been committed in the presence of an abettor, would also not stand attracted when the substantive offences themselves are not made out. Ergo, the prosecution has utterly failed to bring the case within the four corners of the aforesaid provisions, and continuation of the criminal proceedings would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law.

7. In the case of State of Haryana Vs. B.Bhajanlal & ors., AIR 1992 SC 604, the Hon’ble Apex Court summed up the proposition of law, which reads as under:-

“(1) 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.

(2) Where the allegations ins the F.I.R. and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under S.156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of S.155(2) of the code. (3) Where, the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same donot disclose the commission of any offence and make out the case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer wit