FIR Quashing Refused Where Allegations Prima Facie Disclose Cognizable Offences and Criminal History Negates Plea of Malafides

The petitioner, a politician with 23 criminal antecedents, sought to quash the First Information Report (FIR) in Kesariya P.S. Case No. 127 of 2026.

This case was registered following an incident where a police party, investigating a prior case (Kesariya P.S. Case No. 126/2026 regarding a fraudulent firearm license report), was allegedly assaulted and threatened by a mob instigated by the petitioner at his residence.

The petitioner contended that the FIR was a result of political rivalry and was mala fide, as he claimed no role in the submission of the false antecedent report that triggered the initial investigation.

1. Whether the allegations in the FIR, taken at face value, disclose the commission of cognizable offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

2. Whether the criminal proceeding was instituted with mala fide intent or political vendetta sufficient to warrant quashing under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, specifically Sections 126(2), 115(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 109, 132, 352, and 351(2) relating to rioting, assault on public servants, and criminal intimidation.

Landmark precedent of State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others (1992), which established seven specific categories/guidelines under which an FIR or criminal proceeding can be quashed to prevent the abuse of the process of law.

The court found that the contents of the FIR clearly detailed an organized assault on police officers involving weapons like lathi and iron rods, supported by video and photographic evidence, thus constituting prima facie cognizable offences.

Regarding the plea of mala fides, the court observed that the petitioner was the "ultimate beneficiary" of the forged "nil antecedent" report submitted for his firearm license in the connected case; therefore, the investigation into his house was a legitimate exercise of police power rather than a malicious act.

The court evaluated the facts against the Bhajan Lal standards and determined that the allegations were neither "absurd" nor "inherently improbable," nor was there an express legal bar to the prosecution.

The Court ruled that since the allegations disclose a cognizable offence and do not fall under the restrictive categories for quashing established by the Supreme Court, the writ petition lacks merit. The petition was dismissed, and no relief or protection against coercive steps was granted.