FIR cannot be quashed at threshold where allegations disclose an offence; alibi requires investigation or trial.

The petitioner sought quashing of Buxar Mufassil P.S. Case No. 284 of 2018, registered under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act, 2018, concerning the alleged recovery of 293.76 litres of Indian-made foreign liquor from Bolero vehicle No. UP54J-8450.

The petitioner contended that he had been implicated solely because he was the vehicle’s owner, denied knowledge of the liquor, and claimed that he was serving as a Constable at Gola Police Station, Gorakhpur, approximately 200 kilometres from the place of occurrence.

The State opposed quashing, arguing that the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence and that investigation could have revealed material against the petitioner, particularly since the recovery was made from his vehicle.

The FIR recorded that the vehicle was intercepted on confidential information, liquor was recovered in the presence of two independent witnesses, and a seizure list was prepared.

Whether the FIR registered under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act, 2018 disclosed the commission of a criminal offence warranting investigation, such that it could be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Whether the petitioner’s alleged ownership of the vehicle, coupled with his plea of alibi and lack of knowledge regarding the liquor, justified quashing the FIR at the threshold.

The Court considered the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which must be exercised sparingly and not to obstruct or terminate a legitimate prosecution at the investigative stage.

It relied on M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, for the principle that courts should not conduct an inquiry into the reliability or genuineness of allegations in an FIR at the stage of quashing.

It also applied the principles in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, under which an FIR may be quashed where, on its face, it does not disclose any offence or the allegations are wholly unsupported by material.

The alleged conduct was registered under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act, 2018.

The Court found that the FIR expressly disclosed the interception of the vehicle, recovery of a substantial quantity of liquor, presence of independent witnesses, and preparation of a seizure list, thereby making out a prima facie criminal offence.

Applying Neeharika Infrastructure and Bhajan Lal, the Court held that it could not assess the truthfulness of the prosecution allegations or conduct a factual inquiry into the petitioner’s role while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

The petitioner’s assertion that he was merely the vehicle owner and was on duty elsewhere constituted a plea of alibi, which required consideration during investigation or trial and could not, by itself, justify quashing the FIR.

The Court further observed that the investigation had either progressed or was entitled to proceed and could not be scuttled at the threshold in the absence of exceptional grounds for interference.

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was accordingly rejected, and the FIR in Buxar Mufassil P.S. Case No. 284 of 2018 was not quashed.

The petitioner was granted liberty to raise all available arguments at the appropriate stage of the proceedings.