Criminal antecedents justifying delayed FIR and prima facie cognizable offenses preclude quashing of criminal proceedings.

The applicant sought the quashing of three separate FIRs registered at Gondal City ‘B’ Division Police Station involving financial disputes and land transactions

In the first matter (CR No. 8431/2026), the complainant alleged he was induced into financial arrangements and later threatened with dire consequences on 16.10.2024 to deter him from seeking repayment

The second matter (CR No. 8472/2026) involved a dispute over ancestral land (Survey No. 1526) where the applicant allegedly pressurized the complainant’s family to vacate

The third matter (CR No. 8500/2026) alleged that in 2018, the applicant coerced the complainant into executing an agreement to sell land for a mobile tower through assault and threats, without paying the full agreed consideration

The applicant contended that the FIRs were delayed, vague, and filed out of personal vendetta

The State opposed the applications, citing the applicant's extensive criminal history and telephonic evidence of threats

The Court applied the guidelines for quashing criminal proceedings established in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, which allow for quashing only if allegations, taken at face value, do not constitute an offence or are maliciously instituted

It further relied on S.M. Datta v. State of Gujarat and Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, which emphasize that the police have a statutory right to investigate cognizable offences and courts should not assume the role of an investigating agency.

The court also noted the principle from Somjeet Mallick v. State of Jharkhand that the truthfulness of allegations cannot be tested at the threshold stage

Finally, it distinguished Mohammad Wajid v. State of UP, noting that criminal antecedents do not automatically bar relief but must be considered alongside the stage of investigation

The Court observed that while there was a delay in filing the FIRs, the complainants provided a plausible explanation: the applicant is a "headstrong" individual with significant criminal antecedents (11 registered cases), which caused a "fear psychosis"

The Court found that the State had collected material, including call detail records and recordings of threatening language, which prima facie supported the allegations

Justice Thakker reasoned that because the investigation is in its "nascent stage," quashing the FIRs would prematurely obstruct the statutory duty of the police to unearth the truth

The Court further noted the applicant’s conduct—purchasing disputed properties without securing possession or initiating civil remedies—suggested that the allegations were not "inherently improbable" or "frivolous"

Consequently, the Court determined that evaluating the veracity of the claims at this stage would amount to an impermissible "mini-trial"

It held that quashing is an exception and not the rule; when an FIR discloses a prima facie cognizable offence and is supported by preliminary material, the investigation cannot be interdicted

The Court concluded that given the applicant’s antecedents and the existing prima facie evidence, the matters required a full investigation to serve the cause of justice