FIR cannot be quashed when allegations prima facie disclose cognizable offences and lack substantive proof of mala fide.

The petitioner, a politician whose wife is a local Prakhand Pramukh, applied for a second firearm license.

It is alleged that he conspired with a co-accused (a chowkidar) to submit a forged criminal antecedent report showing a clean record, despite having 23 pending criminal cases.

The FIR (Kesariya P.S. Case No. 126/2026) was registered under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The petitioner moved the High Court to quash the FIR, claiming political vendetta and arguing that the forgery was committed solely by the establishment staff.

1. Whether the FIR in question warrants quashing under Article 226 of the Constitution on the grounds of political rivalry and absence of material evidence?

2. Whether the allegations in the FIR prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences under the BNS?

The court primarily applied the principles governing the quashing of criminal proceedings as established by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), which provides seven specific categories where such power may be exercised, such as when allegations do not constitute a prima facie offence or when the proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide.

The court further referenced the division of powers between the judiciary and an investigating agency, noting that investigation into cognizable offences is within the domain of the police.

The court examined the contents of the FIR and found specific allegations that the petitioner induced a co-accused to submit forged reports—bearing falsified signatures of various police officials—to obtain a firearm license.

The court rejected the petitioner's plea of political rivalry, noting a lack of substantive material to prove mala fide by the prosecution.

Applying the Bhajan Lal criteria, the court observed that since the FIR prima facie disclosed the commission of cognizable offences (conspiracy and forgery), it did not fall into any of the exempted categories for quashing.

The court underscored that the petitioner's criminal history of 23 cases and his status as an absconder further weakened the case for extraordinary relief.

The writ petition was dismissed on its merits.