Last week, the Supreme Court pronounced a few judgments making important observations

related to the jurisprudence surrounding the quashing of an FIR either under Section 482 (the
inherent powers) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or Article 226 (extraordinary
jurisdiction) of the Indian Constitution.
The judgments were delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and J.B.
Pardiwala, who heard these matters. The judgments were authored by Justice Pardiwala.
The criminal antecedents of the accused cannot be the sole consideration for declining
to quash the criminal proceedings.
The Apex Court, in its decision of Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P, 2023 LiveLaw (SC)
624, observed that when it comes to quashing an FIR or criminal proceedings, criminal
antecedents of an accused cannot be of sole consideration in declining to quash the
criminal proceedings.
In this case, an FIR was lodged against the accused persons, alleging offences punishable
under Sections 395, 504, 506, and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). They approached the
Apex Court as the Allahabad High Court declined to quash the FIR.
One of the issues before the Supreme Court was whether the case in hand falls within any of
the parameters laid down by this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC
604 to quash the criminal case.

However, as observed earlier, the entire case put up by the first informant on theface of it
appears to be concocted and fabricated. At this stage, we may refer to the parameters laid
down by this Court for quashing of an FIR in the case of Bhajan Lal
(supra). The parameters are:-
“(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they
are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any,
accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by
policeofficers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within
the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the
evidencecollected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and
make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute
only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an
order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that
there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the
concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”
In our opinion, the present case falls within the parameters Nos. 1, 5 and 7 resply referre to
above.
While deciding on the above issue, the Court delved into a submission made by the
Additional Advocate General (AAG), who appeared for the State. She argued against
quashing the FIR, considering gross criminal antecedents of the accused persons. However,
the Court held:
“A bare look at the chart may give an impression that the appellants are history sheeters and
hardened criminals. However, when it comes to quashing of the FIR or criminal
proceedings, the criminal antecedents of the accused cannot be the sole consideration to
decline to quash the criminal proceedings. An accused has a legitimate right to say before
the Court that howsoever bad his antecedents may be, still if the FIR fails to disclose
commission of any offence or his case falls within one of the parameters as laid down by this
Court in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra), then the Court should not decline to quash the
criminal case only on the ground that the accused is a history sheeter.”

In Directorate of Revenue and another v. Mohammed Nisar Holia, (2008) 2 SCC 370, this
Court explicitly recognises the right to not to be disturbed without sufficient grounds as one
of the underlying mandates of Article 21 of the Constitution.

When Accused Seeks to Quash FIR On Ground That It's Based On Personal
Vengeance, Attendant Circumstances Must Be Looked Into
Further, in Salib @ Shalu @ Salim v. State of U P, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 618, the Court
observed that in cases where the quashing of an FIR is sought, essentially on the ground that
the proceedings are based on ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, “then in such
circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely.”
The Court elucidated:
“We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an
ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the
FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings.”
“The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that
they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence.”
Pursuant to this, the Apex Court also made several other imperative observations about the
intricacies of quashing FIRs. They are:
1. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other
attending circumstances emerging from the case record over and above the averments and, if
need be, with due care and circumspection, try to read in between the lines.
2. The Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226
of the Indian Constitution, need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered
to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/ registration of the
case as well as the materials collected in the course of an investigation.
In Mohammad Wajid too, similar observations were made, as follows :
"Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially
on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with
the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a
duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because once the
complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking
personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted
with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in
the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the
alleged offence.
Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the
FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to
constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the
Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record
of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection
try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482
of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a
case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the
initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of
investigation"
High Court Can Try to Read Between the Lines While Considering Plea to Quash FIR
In a similar case, the Apex Court noted that “multiple FIRs had been registered over a period
of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs
assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or
personal grudge as alleged.”
In this case, an FIR was lodged against an accused, alleging the commission of offences
under several Sections of the IPC. The High Court dismissed the petition seeking quashing of
the FIR. In appeal, the Apex Court said that even if the entire case of the prosecution is
believed or accepted to be true, none of the ingredients to constitute the offence as alleged are
disclosed. (Mahmood Ali v. State of UP, 2023 INSC 684).
Against this backdrop, the Court reiterated the principle mentioned above. It recorded:
“In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other
attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the
averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection, try to read in between the
lines.”
In the end, it is worth mentioning the case of Iqbal @ Bala & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.,
2023 INSC 685, which is linked with Salib @ Shalu (mentioned above). In this case, even
though the Court refused to quash the FIR since the charge sheet was ready to be filed before
the competent Court, it observed “allegations levelled in the FIR do not inspire any
confidence more particularly in the absence of any specific date, time, etc. of the alleged
offences.”
Further, the Court reiterated the observations made in Salib @ Shalu. It recorded:
“Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially
on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with
the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a
duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely.”
In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Golconda Linga Swamy, (2004) 6 SCC 522, a two-Judge
Bench of this Court elaborated on the types of materials the High Court can assess to quash
an FIR. The Court drew a fine distinction between consideration of materials that were
tendered as evidence and appreciation of such evidence. Only such material that manifestly
fails to prove the accusation in the FIR can be considered for quashing an FIR. The Court
held:- “5. …Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is
made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent such
abuse. It would be an abuse of the process of the court to allow any action which would result
in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be
justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation or continuance of it amounts to
abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the
ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the
question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into
the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is
made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto.