FIR alleging cognizable offence cannot be quashed under writ jurisdiction if specific allegations exist.

The petitioner, a private driver for a police station, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash a First Information Report (FIR) and stay consequential proceedings

The FIR, registered under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, alleged that the petitioner concealed illegal foreign liquor in a junk vehicle on police premises and transported additional cartons of illicit liquor away from the site

The petitioner contended that the recovery was planted and the allegations were false

1. Whether the FIR and its resulting proceedings should be quashed on the grounds that the allegations are false or do not constitute a cognizable offence

2. Whether the petitioner’s case meets the specific legal criteria required for the High Court to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction to quash a criminal investigation

The court primarily applied the principles governing the quashing of FIRs as established in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), which provides seven illustrative categories where such power may be exercised, such as when allegations do not constitute a cognizable offence or are manifestly malicious

The court also noted that FIRs can be quashed under Article 226 if the institution is completely mala fide or violates specific statutory provisions

The Court reviewed the allegations and found that they specifically detailed the commission of a cognizable offence involving the possession and transport of illicit liquor

The Court observed that the petitioner’s claims of a "planted" recovery were matters for investigation and trial rather than grounds for quashing at this stage

Applying the Bhajan Lal standards, the Court determined that the FIR was not "absurd" or "inherently improbable," nor was there evidence on record to prove the police acted with mala fides or personal grudge

Consequently, the Court found no justification to interfere with the ongoing investigation

The Court answered both issues in the negative, refused to grant the relief of quashing the FIR or restraining coercive actions, and dismissed the writ petition