FIR quashed where complainant turned hostile, co-accused were acquitted, and conviction against the petitioner was remote.

The petitioners invoked Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of FIR C.R. No. I-88 of 2016, registered at Anand Town Police Station for offences under Sections 141, 143, 144, 150, 323, 441, 442, 443, 506(2) and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Petitioner No. 1 died on 11 January 2018; accordingly, the proceedings against him abated.

The petition concerning petitioner No. 2 continued.

The petitioners relied on judgments dated 6 July 2026 in three connected criminal cases, by which the other co-accused had been acquitted.

It was submitted that the complainant had either turned hostile or failed to support the prosecution case, and that no useful purpose would be served by requiring petitioner No. 2 to undergo trial.

The complainant opposed quashing, arguing that acquittal of co-accused, by itself, was insufficient to justify quashing the proceedings.

The State also formally objected.

1. Whether the criminal proceedings against petitioner No. 1 should abate upon his death?

2. Whether the FIR and consequential proceedings should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC against petitioner No. 2 where the complainant had not supported the prosecution case and the other co-accused had been acquitted?

3. Whether continuation of the prosecution would amount to an exercise in futility in view of the remote possibility of conviction?

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of the process of court and to secure the ends of justice.

The underlying FIR alleged offences under Sections 141, 143, 144, 150, 323, 441, 442, 443, 506(2) and 120-B IPC.

The Court relied on Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia & Anr. v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Ors., AIR 1988 SC 709, for the principle that criminal proceedings may be quashed where continuation of the prosecution would serve no useful purpose and the likelihood of conviction is remote.

It also considered the principle, urged by the complainant, that acquittal of co-accused does not automatically require quashing of proceedings against another accused.

The Court examined the judgments in the three connected criminal cases and found that the informant had not supported the contents of the FIR.

In one case, the complainant had turned hostile; in the other two, he had not supported the prosecution despite cross-examination by the Additional Public Prosecutor.

Consequently, the Court concluded that the evidentiary foundation of the prosecution had substantially failed and that there were only remote chances of conviction against petitioner No. 2.

Although acquittal of co-accused alone would not ordinarily justify quashing, it was a significant additional circumstance here because it was accompanied by the complainant’s failure to implicate the accused and the absence of useful material emerging from the connected trials.

Applying the principle in Madhavrao Scindia, the Court held that requiring petitioner No. 2 to face trial would be an exercise in futility.

It allowed the petition under Section 482 CrPC and quashed FIR C.R. No. I-88 of 2016, dated 29 March 2016, registered at Anand Town Police Station, Anand, together with all consequential proceedings, qua petitioner No. 2.

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