The court ruled that an FIR disclosing cognizable offences cannot be quashed without meeting established legal conditions.

Order

26/05/2025

1. By way of filing the present criminal misc. petition under Section 528 BNSS, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Misc. Petition may kindly be allowed and the F.I.R. No. 62/2025 Police Station, Hathuniya, District- Pratapgath for the offence under Sections 189 (2), 115(2), 126(2) AND 109 (1) OF B.N.S. and its entire investigation including filing of charge sheet, if any, may kindly be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner.

In the alternative police authority may kindly be directed to the investigated the matter fairly and impartially in the impugned FIR.

Any other appropriate order in the facts and circumstances of the case, in favour of petitioner may kindly be passed.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and has been falsely roped in a criminal case. Learned counsel submitted that on the date when the members of complainant party were attacked by the accused persons, the petitioner was not present at the place of the alleged incident, rather he was attending a marriage function at Village Ankya Makrana. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case owing to previous animosity between the parties and therefore, the impugned FIR deserves to be quashed and set aside.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties at bar. Perused the material available on record.

4. Upon perusal of the case file, this Court finds that as per the impugned FIR, on 12.05.2025, when the proceedings of land demarkation were being conducted at the disputed site by the revenue authorities, the petitioner alongwith co-accused persons reached there. They were heavily armed and started inflicting injuries upon a number of persons. The impugned FIR thus, clearly discloses commission of cognizable offences. The question as to whether at the time of the alleged incident, the petitioner was present at the place of occurrence or not, is a question of investigation and no definite finding in this regard can be recorded by this Court at this stage.

5. In the opinion of this Court, since the FIR discloses commission of cognizable offences and the petitioner has been named in the impugned FIR, the same cannot be quashed and set aside at this stage. This Court while exercising powers under Section 528 BNSS cannot minutely go into the correctness of the allegations levelled against the petitioner at this stage. This Court is not expected to either scan the entire material available on record or to record any definitive finding on the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, thereon.

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, has illustrated the situations wherein, the extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (528 BNSS) can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The Hon’ble Supreme Court illustrated as under:-

“(a) 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;

(b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code