A FIR cannot be quashed when it discloses cognizable offences requiring further investigation, even if some alleged charges may lack sufficient grounds.

Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2024 This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , to quash Annexure-I FIR in Crime No.522/2024 of Chingavanam Police Station, Kottayam.

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the relevant materials available.

3.In this matter, the prosecution case is that, at about 06.00 am on 16.03.2024, the accused herein trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant in continuation of the disputes in between the accused and the mother of the defacto complainant. It is further alleged that the accused herein caught hold on the hair of the defacto complainant, called her by her caste name and thereby she was abused. It is on this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 451 of IPC as well as under sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 [hereinafter referred as ‘SC/ST (POA) Act’ for short].

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner, after reading the FIS given by the defacto complainant, pointed out that, the offences punishable under Sections 3 (1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act are not made out and all other offences alleged against the petitioner are bailable offences. Therefore, this is a fit case for quashment.

5.The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer for quashment of the FIR in a case where the investigation is at primitive stage involving offences under Sections 3 (1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act. He also submitted that the FIR was registered since the FIS disclosed materials regarding commission of cognizable offences and therefore the matter would require investigation.

6.Though, it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the ingredients to attract offences punishable under Sections 3 (1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act are not made out from the prosecution records, as pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, the investigation is only at the primitive stage and the FIS contains disclosure of commission of cognizable offences, necessitating investigation regarding the same. Therefore, this is not a fit case for quashment.

7.Faced with the situation, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought for breathing time for the petitioner to approach the Special Court seeking bail, as per law.

8.Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed granting breathing time of two weeks from today to the petitioner, to move before the Special Court to seek bail, in accordance with the law.

Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the trial court, within three days, for information and further steps.