Vague allegations without identifying forged material cannot sustain prosecution against an investigating officer.

The petitioner, an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, was the Investigating Officer in Kotwali P.S. Case Nos. 571 of 2017 and 664 of 2017.

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, in conspiracy with the informants and another Investigating Officer, fabricated evidence and assisted in using the criminal cases to recover the amount from the accused persons.

During investigation, the petitioner recorded witness statements, acted pursuant to supervisory directions issued by senior police officers, and submitted charge-sheet No. 06 of 2018 after finding the allegations substantiated.

The impugned Kotwali P.S. Case No. 580 of 2019 was subsequently registered under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 193 and 120B of the IPC, following a complaint made by the wife of one of the accused before the National Commission for Women and a subsequent departmental inquiry.

Proceedings against co-accused Lalan Kumar had already been quashed by a coordinate Bench in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 48336 of 2019 on 26 July 2024.

No charge-sheet had been filed in the impugned case despite the passage of approximately seven years.

Whether the allegations in Kotwali P.S. Case No. 580 of 2019 disclosed the commission of offences under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 193 and 120B of the IPC against the petitioner?

Whether continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, who had acted as Investigating Officer in the earlier cases, amounted to an abuse of the process of law warranting quashing of the FIR?

Whether the lodging of a separate FIR was legally justified when the grievance related to the investigation and charge-sheet filed in earlier criminal cases?

The Court considered the offences alleged under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 193 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, which require specific factual foundations for cheating, forgery, use of forged documents, fabrication of evidence and criminal conspiracy.

It applied the principle governing the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of the process of law and relied on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, for the proposition that criminal proceedings may be quashed where the allegations, even if accepted on their face, do not disclose the commission of an offence.

The Court also recognised that a challenge to an investigation or charge-sheet should ordinarily be pursued through appropriate investigative or judicial remedies, including further investigation, rather than by instituting a separate FIR on vague allegations.

The Court found that the original cases were based on written complaints and that the petitioner had merely investigated them, recorded witness statements, acted under the supervision of superior officers, and submitted charge-sheets on the basis of the material collected.

The case diaries showed that supervisory reports and other investigative materials had been considered before submission of the charge-sheet.

The allegation that the petitioner had fabricated evidence was not supported by any specific identification of the document, evidence or act allegedly forged or fabricated by him; consequently, the ingredients of forgery and related offences were absent.

The Court further noted that cognizance had been taken by the Magistrate after judicial application of mind, and that proceedings against the alleged informant-conspirator had already been quashed in the connected matter.

In these circumstances, the impugned FIR was considered vague and unsubstantiated, and its continuation—particularly after an unexplained delay of seven years without filing a charge-sheet—was held to constitute unnecessary harassment and an abuse of the process of law.

It further held that instituting a separate FIR in the circumstances was unwarranted and that continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

Accordingly, Kotwali P.S. Case No. 580 of 2019 was quashed insofar as it concerned the petitioner, and the criminal miscellaneous application was allowed.