An FIR alleging deadly assault and abetment cannot be quashed before investigation is completed.

The second respondent alleged that her husband was attacked with an aruval and wooden log by known and unknown persons while returning home.

The police registered Crime No. 629 of 2017 against five accused under Sections 147, 148, 109, 324 and 307 IPC; the fifth accused later died.

Accused Nos. 1 to 4 petitioned under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR, contending that the assailants were unidentified and that the allegations did not disclose the offences alleged.

Whether the FIR should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC because its allegations do not disclose the alleged offences or connect the petitioners to them.

Whether the investigation should be permitted to continue before the petitioners’ challenges to the allegations are considered.

Section 482 CrPC confers inherent power to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

The court relied on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, which identifies categories in which criminal proceedings may be quashed, and M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 330 of 2021, which the court cited for the principles that quashing an FIR should be exercised sparingly and that courts should not ordinarily assess the merits of allegations or halt an investigation at a premature stage.

The court also considered the invoked IPC provisions: Sections 147 and 148 concerning rioting and rioting while armed, Section 324 concerning voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means, Section 307 concerning attempt to murder, and Section 109 concerning abetment.

The complaint alleged that the injured person was attacked with an aruval and a wooden log, which, in the court’s view, prima facie attracted Sections 147, 148, 324 and 307 IPC.

Although the petitioners argued that they were not alleged to have been present at the scene, the complaint attributed to the first petitioner the alleged abetment of the attack by engaging assailants because of the property dispute; whether that allegation could be established was a matter for investigation and evidence.

The identity and roles of the assailants had not yet been ascertained. Applying the principles cited from Neeharika Infrastructure and Bhajan Lal, the court declined to decide the factual merits or quash the FIR at that stage.

It directed the first respondent to expedite the investigation in Crime No. 629 of 2017 and file a charge sheet before the jurisdictional Magistrate within three months from the date of the order. The connected miscellaneous petition was closed.