FIR quashed under Section 482 CrPC where allegations were a mala fide counterblast to forest-offence proceedings.

The petitioner invoked Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”), seeking quashing of FIR being C.R. No. I-25 of 2025, dated 26 March 2015, registered at Talala Police Station, Gir Somnath, for offences under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act.

The complainant alleged that the petitioner abused and assaulted him with a stone following an altercation near a dairy, causing a head injury requiring three stitches, and subsequently threatened him.

The petitioner contended that, two days earlier, she had registered a forest offence report against the complainant’s brother-in-law and sister for alleged encroachment and damage to forest plantation.

She argued that the impugned FIR was a mala fide counterblast filed to wreak personal vengeance.

The State opposed quashing, relying on the medical certificate and alleged eyewitnesses.

The original complainant, though served, did not appear.

Whether the FIR and consequential proceedings against the petitioner warranted quashing under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Whether the FIR was manifestly mala fide and instituted as a counterblast to the forest offence report and the related FIR lodged against the complainant’s relatives, thereby falling within the principles stated in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal.

Whether the allegations and supporting medical material disclosed a sufficiently credible basis to permit the criminal proceedings to continue against the petitioner.

The Court applied Section 482 Cr.P.C., which preserves the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of court and secure the ends of justice.

The alleged offences were under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 506(2) IPC and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act.

The Court relied on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604, particularly category (7) of paragraph 102, under which criminal proceedings may be quashed where they are manifestly attended with mala fides or maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance arising from private or personal grudge.

At the quashing stage, the Court assessed whether the allegations, read with the surrounding circumstances and available material, disclosed a genuine prosecution or an abuse of process.

The Court found that the petitioner had previously lodged a forest offence report against the complainant’s brother-in-law and sister, followed by a separate FIR alleging obstruction, abuse and threats against the petitioner.

This sequence supported the petitioner’s contention that the present FIR was a retaliatory counterblast.

The Court also noted that the medical certificate did not name the petitioner as the assailant, although the FIR specifically attributed the assault to her; the medical history merely recorded that the complainant had been assaulted by someone.

Further, the Court considered the alleged incident improbable in light of the petitioner’s age of 22 years and the complainant’s age of 40 years, together with the surrounding circumstances.

On the cumulative assessment, the allegations were treated as motivated by personal vengeance and as falling within the mala fide category identified in Bhajan Lal.

The petition was allowed, and FIR C.R. No. I-25 of 2025, dated 26 March 2015, registered at Talala Police Station, together with all consequential proceedings, was quashed and set aside qua the petitioner.

Rule was made absolute to that extent, and direct service was permitted.