An FIR following an NCR for the same incident requires Magistrate’s permission.

The petitions arose from competing complaints between two families following Yashaswini’s relationship with, and subsequent marriage to, Shamanth.

In Crl.P. No. 7773/2022, Shamanth challenged the charge sheet and proceedings under Sections 448 and 323 IPC arising from a complaint about an alleged incident at the complainants’ residence on 25 November 2020.

An NCR had first been issued; a later complaint to the Deputy Commissioner of Police led to registration of an FIR and investigation.

In Crl.P. No. 3035/2021, Ram Kunchur, Shreyaswini and Jayalakshmi challenged an FIR registered on Yashaswini’s complaint alleging, among other things, assault, wrongful confinement, intimidation and harassment.

They contended that the complaint was a counterblast and that its allegations were vague and omnibus.

Both petitions were heard together.

1. Whether the FIR and ensuing proceedings against Shamanth were liable to be quashed where an NCR had previously been issued concerning the same incident and the later FIR was registered without an order under Section 155(2) CrPC.

2. Whether the FIR challenged in Crl.P. No. 3035/2021 disclosed sufficiently particularised allegations constituting the alleged offences, or was liable to be quashed in light of its vagueness and the surrounding circumstances.

Under Section 155(2) CrPC, police may not investigate a non-cognizable case without an order of a Magistrate; Sections 154(3) and 156(3) CrPC provide routes for seeking further action when a complaint is not acted upon.

The Court relied on Tulsidas Gopal Naik v. State of Goa, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 6691; Asif Khan Pathan v. State, 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2217; and Jitendra Namdev Daravkar v. State of Maharashtra, 2025:BHC-AS:31112-DB, for the proposition that a later FIR based on a further complaint concerning the same incident cannot bypass the Magistrate’s permission requirement after an NCR has been issued.

It also applied the principles in Ghanshyam Soni v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1301, concerning the need for adequate particulars in allegations, and Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 951, and Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P., (2023) 15 SCC 488, permitting the Court, in an appropriate quashing petition, to consider the surrounding circumstances and materials to assess whether proceedings are vexatious or an abuse of process.

As to Shamanth, the Court found that an NCR had been issued on the earlier complaint concerning the 25 November 2020 incident, while the later complaint—although styled as an appeal—added allegations and led to an FIR on the Deputy Commissioner of Police’s direction.

Applying the cited authorities, it held that registration of the FIR without leave under Section 155(2) CrPC was illegal and vitiated the ensuing proceedings.

As to the second petition, the Court found the allegations concerning the period stated to be covered by the later FIR vague and lacking particulars as to the dates, times and places of incidents.

It also considered the history of multiple complaints between the parties and concluded that the allegations arose against the background of family opposition to the couple’s marriage and formed part of reciprocal accusations amounting to an abuse of process.

It quashed the proceedings in C.C. No. 9860/2022 against Shamanth for offences under Sections 448 and 323 IPC.

It also quashed the FIR in Crime No. 73/2021 and all further proceedings against Ram Kunchur, Shreyaswini and Jayalakshmi for offences under Sections 506, 504, 323, 342 and 354 read with Section 34 IPC.

The Court additionally noted that consenting adults are entitled to choose their life partners and referred to Lata Singh v. State of U.P., (2006) 5 SCC 475, and Shakti Vahini v. Union of India, (2018) 7 SCC 192.