FIR based on vague allegations lacking offence ingredients is liable to be quashed.

Opposite Party No. 2, Laxmi Devi, lodged Mansi P.S. Case No. 219 of 2022 alleging that she received a telephone call from Mobile No. 9661206044. The caller allegedly represented that he was calling from Mansi Police Station, informed her that a case had been lodged against her, offered to help her, and discouraged her from visiting the police station while asking her to come to his residence, allegedly with an improper intention.

The accused was not named in the FIR and was identified only as the bearer of the relevant mobile number. The FIR invoked Sections 420 and 166A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The petitioner, a police officer and the investigating officer in Mansi P.S. Case No. 168 of 2022, in which the informant was an accused, sought quashing of the FIR.

Despite valid service of notice, Opposite Party No. 2 did not appear before the High Court.

The State opposed quashing at the threshold, submitting that the investigation should not be prematurely interdicted.

Whether the allegations in Mansi P.S. Case No. 219 of 2022, on their face, disclose the commission of offences under Sections 420 and 166A IPC and Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the petitioner?

Whether continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court, warranting exercise of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to quash the FIR?

The Court considered the offences alleged under Sections 420 and 166A of the IPC and Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

It applied the principles governing quashing of criminal proceedings under the categories identified in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604, particularly where the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not constitute an offence or where the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fides and their continuation would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

The Court also recognised that although investigation should ordinarily not be scuttled at the threshold, the FIR may be quashed where the allegations are inherently vague and fail to disclose any prima facie criminal offence.

The Court found that the FIR contained only a general reference to calls from a particular mobile number and did not provide clear or specific details of the conversation, the alleged deception, the inducement, or any other facts constituting the essential ingredients of the offences invoked.

The petitioner was not named in the FIR, and the materials collected during investigation did not substantiate the alleged offences.

The Court further noted that the petitioner had been the investigating officer in a case in which the informant was an accused, creating a possible background for mala fide implication.

The informant’s failure to appear despite service of notice was also viewed as conduct raising suspicion regarding the prosecution.

Applying the Bhajan Lal principles, the Court held that the allegations were vague, unclear, and unsupported by the investigation, and that continuing the prosecution would constitute an abuse of the process of the Court.

Accordingly, Mansi P.S. Case No. 219 of 2022 dated 28 June 2022, along with all consequential prosecution arising from it, was quashed. The criminal miscellaneous application was allowed.