Criminal quashing petitions may be dismissed when petitioners fail to pursue them despite opportunity.

The petitioners filed four petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash FIRs in Crime Nos. 71, 72, 73 and 74 of 2020, registered for alleged offences under the IPC and the Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act.

By an order dated 28 October 2021, the Court directed the petitioners to engage another advocate after their advocate on record had died and granted them two weeks to do so. The petitioners neither engaged another advocate nor appeared in person.

The petitions invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to seek quashing of the FIRs.

The Court’s order, however, did not examine the scope of that jurisdiction or apply any substantive statutory provision or precedent. It proceeded on the case-specific procedural circumstance that the petitioners had not pursued the matter despite the Court’s direction and opportunity to engage new counsel.

The Court noted that the petitioners had been granted two weeks, by its order dated 28 October 2021, to arrange new representation after their counsel’s death.

As they neither engaged another advocate nor appeared personally, the Court concluded that they were not interested in pursuing the petitions. It therefore did not consider the merits of the FIRs or the grounds for quashing them.

The dismissal was procedural; the Court made no determination on the merits of the quashing requests.