An FIR can be quashed if it lacks necessary allegations to support the charges, indicating abuse of process, as seen under Sections 196(1)(a) and 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 196(1)(a) and 353(2) - Quashing of FIR - The petitioner challenged FIR under Sections 196(1)(a) claiming absence of necessary ingredients for the alleged offences, asserting it was a counterblast complaint lacking clarity and specificity. (Paras 3-7)

(B) Legal standards - The court established that continuation of proceedings is preventable if allegations in the FIR do not disclose necessary elements of the offence or if they are so vague that no reasonable person could conclude a case exists. (Paras 32, 33)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to quash the FIR lodged against him for alleged offences under Sections 196(1)(a) and 353(2). He argued the complaint lacked demonstrable evidence of the accused's intention to disturb public harmony and was merely a retaliatory filing. (Paras 1-2)

Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the FIR lacked clear details of the charges against the petitioner, indicating a misuse of legal provisions meant for genuine offences by filing vague complaints. (Paras 6-7)

Issues: The court addressed whether there was a prima facie case to sustain charges under the alleged offences and the standard for quashing an FIR. (Paras 10-11)

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that for a prima facie determination, the FIR must have clear allegations that meet the statutory requirements; without such clarity, the complaint could be seen as an abuse of legal processes. (Paras 6-7)

Result: The petition was allowed and the FIR quashed.

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:

“(a) Call for records; allow this Criminal Petition and quash the FIR and Compliant in Crime No.0030/2025 for the alleged offences under Section 196 (1) (a) and 353(2) of the BNS , 2023 registered by the Respondent Putturu Town PS (On the file of learned Prl. Senior Civil Judge and ACJM Court, Puttur, Dakshina Kannada) and all further actions pursuant thereto, in the ends of justice (produced at Document Nos.1 and 2)

(b) Grant such other relief or further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deem fit to grant, in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.”

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned SPP-1 along with HCGP for respondent and perused the material on record.

3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, the learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the impugned complaint and FIR in order to point out that necessary ingredients for commission of the offences punishable under Section 196 (1)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023 (old Section 153A of IPC) were conspicuously absent and not forthcoming in the same and the impugned complaint and FIR deserve to be quashed in the light of the following judgments of the Apex Court and this Court:

(i) Javed Ahmad Hajam v. State of Maharashtra [(2024) 4 SCC 156] ;

(ii) Shiv Prasad Semwal v. State of Uttarakhand [(2024) 7 SCC 555]

(iii) Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of A.P. , [(1997)7 SCC 431]

(iv) Suresha v. State of Karnataka [Crl.P.No.5694/2024 DD 20.09.2024]

4. Per contra, learned SPP-I for the respondent submits that the complaint makes out the allegations and the facebook post that the petitioner uploaded and later circulated in WhatsApp groups by general public indicates commission of the offences punishable under Section 196 (1)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023, and as such, the question of interfering with the same at this stage would not arise in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.

5. Before adverting to the rival submissions, it would be necessary to extract the complaint, which is as under:

6. A perusal of the complaint and FIR would clearly indicate that the petitioner is alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Section 196 (1)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023 (old Section 153-A of IPC). Under identical circumstances, in relation to the offence punishable under Section 153-A of IPC, the Apex Court and this Court have held in the following judgments as under:

(i) Paragraphs 7 to 10 and 12 of the judgment of the Apex Court in Javed Ahmad Hajam v. State of Maharashtra [(2024)4 SCC 156] reads as under:

"7. In Manzar Sayeed Khan, while interpreting Section 153-A , in para 16, this Court held thus: (SCC p. 9)

"16. Section 153-A IPC, as extracted hereinabove, covers a case where a person by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities or acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony or is likely to disturb the public tranquillity.

The gist of the offence is the intention to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of people. The intention to cause disorder or incite the people to violence is the sine qua non of the offence under Section 153-A IPC and the prosecution has to prove prima facie the existence of mens rea on the part of the accused. The intention has to be judged primarily by the language of the book and the circumstances in which the book was written and published. The matter complained of within the ambit of Section 153-A must be read as a whole. One cannot rely on strongly worded and isolated passages for proving the charge nor indeed can one take a sent

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 19860

An FIR can be quashed if it lacks necessary allegations to support the charges, indicating abuse of process, as seen under Sections 196(1)(a) and 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Cases Referred (4)