An FIR alleging disobedience of communicated government directions survives quashing when it prima facie discloses cognizable offences.

The petitioner, a Deputy Superintendent of Police in the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Assam, was entrusted with Regular Enquiry No. 21(4) of 2017 into alleged disproportionate assets of a public servant.

After the Government approved registration of a regular case on 30 January 2018, the FIR alleged that the petitioner was directed to register the case, received the relevant note-sheet extract on 15 February 2018, but continued the enquiry and submitted a progress report in December 2018.

An internal enquiry later attributed responsibility for the delay to the petitioner, among others.

The petitioner sought to quash the subsequent FIR, registered under Sections 166-A(b), 217 and 201 IPC and Section 98(a) of the Assam Police Act, 2007, arguing, among other things, that he had not received the direction and that no separate FIR was required.

The High Court considered the FIR and the materials described in it.

Whether the FIR and accompanying materials, taken at face value, disclosed a prima facie cognizable offence against the petitioner warranting investigation, or instead met the threshold for quashing.

Whether the petitioner’s contention that the original enquiry petition should itself have been treated as the vigilance case, obviating the need for a fresh case, justified quashing the FIR.

The petitioner invoked Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice.

Applying State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Court stated that quashing may be appropriate, among other circumstances, where the FIR’s allegations—even if accepted at face value—do not prima facie constitute an offence, or where the uncontroverted allegations and supporting material disclose no offence; conversely, an FIR disclosing a cognizable offence ordinarily does not warrant quashing at that stage.

The FIR alleged offences under Sections 166-A(b), 217 and 201 of the IPC, read with Section 98(a) of the Assam Police Act, 2007.

The Court treated the alleged receipt of the note-sheet extract on 15 February 2018, the direction to register a case following Government approval, and the petitioner’s subsequent continuation of the enquiry and submission of a progress report as allegations that, if accepted at face value, disclosed a cognizable offence.

The petitioner’s denial of receipt raised a factual dispute unsuitable for determination in a quashing proceeding; the FIR and enquiry report expressly stated that he had received the extract.

The Court also rejected the argument that the original enquiry petition could substitute for a fresh case because the Government had specifically approved registration of a case against the public servant.

It declined to quash the FIR and dismissed and disposed of the petition.