Fraud and suppression vitiate judicial orders, and an FIR must be tested on its own allegations before quashing.

A judicial order obtained by fraud or wilful suppression of material facts is a nullity and may be examined in collateral proceedings. The power to quash an FIR must be exercised sparingly, and allegations of criminal conspiracy, corruption and cheating must be tested on the FIR's own contents rather than rejected simply because the supply followed earlier court directions. The prior ruling was confined to the Coal Controller's authority to vary contractual allotments and did not decide whether the company had breached its obligations or suppressed material facts. The FIR therefore disclosed matters requiring investigation and was not fit for quashing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the First Information Report alleging criminal conspiracy, corruption, cheating and suppression of material facts could be quashed on the ground that the coal supply to the private company had been made pursuant to court orders.

Analysis: The controversy before the earlier courts was limited to the legal authority of the Coal Controller to issue directions varying the contractual allotments. That ruling did not determine whether the private company had already committed breach of its contractual obligations, or whether relevant facts about such breach had been deliberately withheld in the proceedings before the High Court and this Court. A judicial order obtained by fraud or by wilful suppression of material facts is a nullity and may be examined in collateral proceedings. The power to quash an FIR is to be exercised sparingly, and the allegations in the FIR had to be tested on their own contents rather than being shut out merely because the supply had followed earlier court directions.

Conclusion: The FIR disclosed allegations requiring investigation and did not warrant quashing.

---