An FIR's validity is determined by its allegations, not the correctness of those allegations, and preliminary investigations should not be thwarted without substantial justification.

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:-

(i) Quash the FIR in Crime No.124/2024 dated: 28.09.2024 registered by Chamarajanagar Rural Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 353 (2) of BHARTIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023 pending on the file of Court of Prl.Civil Judge(Jr.Div) and JMFC, Chamarajanagar vide Annexure-B;

(ii) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case is concerned in the interest of justice and equity.”

2. Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl.SPP for 1^st respondent – State and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the 2^nd respondent – de facto complainant filed the impugned complaint dated 28.09.2024 which was registered as an FIR in Crime No.124/2024 against the petitioner for alleged offences punishable under Section 353 (2) of BNS , 2023. The said complaint and FIR are as under:-

FIR Dated 28.09.2024

4. The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been reiterated by the Apex Court in its recent judgment in the case of Somjeet Mallick vs. State of Jharkhand & others – (2024) 10 SCC 527 , as hereunder:-

Analysis

“ 15. Before we proceed to test the correctness of the impugned order, we must bear in mind that at the stage of deciding whether a criminal proceeding or FIR, as the case may be, is to be quashed at the threshold or not, the allegations in the FIR or the police report or the complaint, including the materials collected during investigation or inquiry, as the case may be, are to be taken at their face value so as to determine whether a prima facie case for investigation or proceeding against the accused, as the case may be, is made out. The correctness of the allegations is not to be tested at this stage.

16. To commit an offence, unless the penal statute provides otherwise, mens rea is one of the essential ingredients. Existence of mens rea is a question of fact which may be inferred from the act in question as well as the surrounding circumstances and conduct of the accused. As a sequitur, when a party alleges that the accused, despite taking possession of the truck on hire, has failed to pay hire charges for months together, while making false promises for its payment, a prima facie case, reflective of dishonest intention on the part of the accused, is made out which may require investigation. In such circumstances, if the FIR is quashed at the very inception, it would be nothing short of an act which thwarts a legitimate investigation.

17. It is trite law that FIR is not an encyclopaedia of all imputations. Therefore, to test whether an FIR discloses commission of a cognizable offence what is to be looked at is not any omission in the accusations but the gravamen of the accusations contained therein to find out whether, prima facie, some cognizable offence has been committed or not. At this stage, the court is not required to ascertain as to which specific offence has been committed.

18. It is only after investigation, at the time of framing charge, when materials collected during investigation are before the court, the court has to draw an opinion as to for commission of which offence the accused should be tried. Prior to that, if satisfied, the court may even discharge the accused. Thus, when the FIR alleges a dishonest conduct on the part of the accused which, if supported by materials, would disclose commission of a cognizable offence, investigation should not be thwarted by quashing the FIR.

19. No doubt, a petition to quash the FIR does not become infructuous on submission of a police report under Section 173(2)CrPC, but when a police report has been submitted, particularly when there is no stay on the investig