High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Under POCSO, SC/ST Acts Citing Bhajanlal Guidelines on S. 482 Cr.P.C. Scope - 2025-04-26

High Court Dismisses Plea to Quash Serious POCSO/SC-ST FIR, Upholds Investigation Scope Jodhpur: The High Court has dismissed a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) seeking to quash a First Information Report (FIR) registered under serious charges, including those under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The FIR, numbered 54/2023, was lodged at Police Station Jhanwar, Distt. Jodhpur City West, alleging offences under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 7 & 8 of the POCSO Act, and Sections 3(1)(s) & 3(1)(w)(i) of the SC/ST Act. Case Background The petitioner approached the High Court seeking to quash the FIR, asserting innocence and claiming false implication. The petitioner's counsel argued that nothing untoward had happened with the child at the school, presenting a written statement from the school Principal to support this claim. They also pointed out the absence of CCTV footage or call recording evidence submitted with the FIR, suggesting grounds for quashing the case at the outset. Conversely, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State vehemently opposed the petitioner's prayer, emphasizing the seriousness of the allegations. Court's Reasoning and Reliance on Precedents After considering the arguments and reviewing the case diary, the Court noted the gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, particularly highlighting that the victim is a 13-year-old girl. The Court stated that at this nascent stage, it cannot be concluded that the allegations are false or that the alleged offence could not have occurred. The judgment extensively referenced landmark Supreme Court decisions delineating the scope and limits of the High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIRs and criminal proceedings. The Court specifically cited and relied upon the guidelines laid down in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Choudhary Bhajanlal & Ors., the principles reiterated in Janta Dal v. H.S. Choudhary, Pratibha v. Rameshwari Devi & Ors., and N. Soundaram v. P.K. Pounraj & Anr. A significant portion of the judgment was dedicated to extracting the principles from the recent Supreme Court decision in M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd v. State of Maharashtra. This case reinforced that:

The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised "sparingly and cautiously to prevent the abuse of process of any Court and to secure the ends of justice" and should not be used to "stifle a legitimate prosecution." The High Court should refrain from giving a prima facie decision unless compelling circumstances exist. When considering a quashing prayer, the Court's role is primarily to assess whether the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. The Court is "not required to consider on merits whether the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence or not". Police must be permitted to complete the investigation, as the FIR is "not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported." It would be "premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law."

Pivotal Excerpts Referencing M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure, the Court quoted: "(xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR... Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law..." And further: "(xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused, the court when it exercises the power under Section 482Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence or not. The Court is not required to consider on merits whether the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence or not and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR." Decision and Implications In light of the serious nature of the allegations and the clear judicial pronouncements from the Apex Court regarding the limited scope of intervention at the investigation stage, the High Court concluded that no case was made out for quashing the FIR. Consequently, the criminal misc. petition was dismissed. The stay petition also stood dismissed, clearing the path for the investigation into the serious charges to proceed.