FIR quashed against accused where the complaint disclosed no specific role or overt act.

The de facto complainant alleged that A1, a HDFC Life Insurance Branch Manager, collected money for insurance policies in 2018 and issued forged policy documents and receipts.

When the complainant later sought to foreclose the policies, the insurer denied their validity.

A1 subsequently paid the complainant ₹35.8 lakh, but the complainant alleged a remaining loss of ₹1.5 crore and lodged a complaint naming A1 and A1’s father, Janakiraman (A2).

The police registered Crime No. 32 of 2024 under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC.

A2 petitioned under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR insofar as it concerned him, contending that the complaint disclosed no specific act or role on his part.

1. Whether the FIR disclosed a prima facie role or overt act by A2 sufficient to continue the investigation against him

2. Whether the FIR should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC insofar as it concerned A2

Section 482 CrPC empowers the High Court to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice.

The offences alleged in the FIR were under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC.

The State relied on Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 330 of 2021 (13 April 2021), for the principles that quashing at the FIR stage is to be exercised sparingly and that investigation ordinarily should be allowed to proceed; the investigating agency may report to the Magistrate if its investigation finds no substance in the complaint.

The Court’s application of Section 482 turned on whether the complaint contained material disclosing A2’s involvement.

The Court found that the complaint described the insurance dealings and alleged forgery against A1, but did not state that A2 participated in the transaction, conspired or colluded with A1, or signed any receipt or other document.

A2 was named only in the concluding request for action against A1 and his father.

In the absence of any allegation or prima facie material identifying A2’s role, the Court concluded that continuing the investigation against him would serve no useful purpose and would amount to an abuse of process.

It directed the police to continue the investigation against A1 and file a final report within two months of receiving the order; the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.