High Court clarifies and reaffirms the guiding principles for quashing FIRs under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS) even where the FIR is registered upon a Magistrate’s direction under Section 156(3). Where allegations are prima facie frivolous, actuated by malice, or amount to abuse of process, quashing is justified. Judgment follows established Supreme Court precedent; binding on courts within the jurisdiction and strongly persuasive elsewhere—particularly regarding the assessment of FIRs arising from cross-litigation and delay.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM(M)/949/2022 of PARVEEN AKTHER Vs U T OF J AND K TH POLICE STATION TRIKUTA NAGAR JAMMU AND ANOTHER |
| CNR | JKHC020058262022 |
| Date of Registration | 16-11-2022 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHD. YOUSUF WANI |
| Court | High Court of Jammu and Kashmir |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in J&K and Ladakh; highly persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Criminal procedure |
| Questions of Law | Whether FIRs registered on Magistrate’s orders under Section 156(3) can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC for malice, abuse of process, or where allegations are prima facie frivolous. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The High Court retains inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS) to quash FIRs at any stage, including those arising from Magistrates’ orders under Section 156(3), if it is evident that the criminal proceedings are based on mala fide complaints, are frivolous in nature, or constitute an abuse of the process of law. Mere registration of an FIR on the direction of a Magistrate does not insulate it from scrutiny under these inherent powers. The Court emphasised that delay in filing a cross-complaint, non-cooperation with investigating agencies, and subsequent corroborative conduct may indicate malice and justify quashing. The order of the Magistrate must be reasoned and not mechanically passed; failure in this regard is ground for interference. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | High Court’s power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC is not fettered even when FIR is registered on Magistrate’s orders under Section 156(3). Courts should be vigilant against abuse of process, frivolous or mala fide litigation, and any deficiency in Magistrate’s orders—judicial application of mind is required before registration of FIR is directed. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioner and respondent are relatives embroiled in cross-litigation stemming from matrimonial disputes. The respondent lodged a delayed complaint against the petitioner, following the petitioner’s prior FIR against him. This led to a Magistrate’s order, with minimal judicial reasoning, directing registration of an FIR under Sections 389 and 186 IPC. Subsequent investigation showed delayed witness statements and lack of substantial evidence. Petitioner sought quashing alleging abuse of process and mala fides; the Court found material supporting these assertions and identified procedural errors in the Magistrate’s order. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate criminal courts within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh |
| Persuasive For | Other State High Courts; may be cited before the Supreme Court or in similar cases involving FIRs registered on Magistrate’s direction under Section 156(3) |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that inherent powers to quash FIRs (Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 BNSS) extend to FIRs registered on Magistrate’s orders under Section 156(3).
- Highlights that courts must scrutinize complaints for malice, delay, cross-litigation motives, and procedural lapses (e.g., lack of speaking order by Magistrate).
- Emphasises non-mechanical approach: Magistrates must apply mind and provide clear reasons before directing FIR registration.
- Delay in making a counter-complaint and belated witness statements can support inference of mala fides.
- Lawyers handling cross-FIRs or counterblast litigations can use this as robust authority for seeking quashment on grounds of abuse of process or procedural irregularity.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court traced the settled legal position that High Courts possess inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS) to quash criminal proceedings at any stage, including after charge-sheet or even after trial has begun, particularly where the complaint is mala fide, frivolous, or is an abuse of process.
- Cited and relied on precedents:
- State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604): Lists illustrative categories for quashing FIRs, such as when the allegations are inherently improbable or made with mala fide intent.
- Neharika Infrastructure v. State of Maharashtra and Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash: Emphasised restraint at the initial stage, except in exceptional cases of malice or absurdity.
- Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat (2025 INSC 410): Specifically recognises power to quash even after charge-sheet/trial initiation.
- Evaluated the factual context: The respondent’s delayed cross-complaint, lack of timely police cooperation, investigation irregularities, and late recording of witness statements suggested an afterthought and possible misuse of process.
- Critiqued the Magistrate’s order: Noted non-application of mind, absence of a clear speaking order, and improper delegation to police without judicial satisfaction regarding the commission of a cognizable offence.
- Concluded that mechanical registration of FIRs on Magistrate’s orders, absent real judicial scrutiny, cannot bar the High Court from assessing mala fides and abuse.
- Held that continuation of prosecution would cause prejudice to the petitioner in the circumstances and thus quashed the FIR.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- FIR is outcome of false and frivolous allegations aimed at vengeance.
- The impugned FIR is a counterblast to the prior FIR lodged by the petitioner against the respondent.
- The Magistrate’s order directing FIR registration was passed without proper application of mind.
- Ongoing criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process and cause undue prejudice.
Respondent No. 1 (State)
- FIR was registered in compliance with Magistrate’s order under Section 156(3) based on complaint disclosing cognizable offence.
- Investigation nearly complete; genuineness of allegations should be decided at trial.
- SHO is legally obligated to register FIR when complaint discloses a cognizable offence, especially when ordered by Magistrate.
Respondent No. 2 (Complainant)
- Alleges incident where petitioner came to his office and abused, threatened, and tried to extort money.
- Denies any malafide intent; asserts FIR was properly registered following due process.
- Points to internal inquiry that found her allegations baseless.
- Contends that any delay in the complaint was due to perceived inaction by police authorities.
Factual Background
The petitioner and respondent, related through marriage, were engaged in ongoing matrimonial litigation. On 17.08.2022, the petitioner filed an FIR against respondent No.2 and others under Sections 498-A IPC and relevant provisions of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019. Respondent No.2, a government law officer, later alleged that on 18.08.2022 the petitioner abused and threatened him in his office and demanded money. Respondent No.2 lodged a delayed complaint with the police and, after claiming lack of police action, sought a Magistrate’s direction under Section 156(3) CrPC, leading to registration of the impugned FIR under Sections 389 and 186 IPC. The petitioner then moved the High Court seeking quashment, contending the criminal process was being abused in retaliation for prior proceedings.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS: The High Court’s inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings extend to FIRs registered on Magistrate orders under Section 156(3). These powers are to be exercised to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice.
- Section 156(3) CrPC: Magistrate must apply mind and pass a speaking order when directing registration of an FIR; non-reasoned or mechanical orders are open to challenge.
- Interpretation was aligned with Supreme Court precedent; the court emphasised a vigilant scrutinising role when grounds of mala fides or procedural lapses are raised.
Procedural Innovations
- The judgment reiterates the necessity for Magistrates to pass clear, speaking orders, not merely reiterate police action, when receiving applications under Section 156(3) CrPC.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Judgment reaffirms existing Supreme Court jurisprudence and fortifies procedural safeguards against abuse, while clarifying duties of Magistrates and the latitude for High Court review under Section 482 CrPC.